on 01-26-2007 9:13 PM
Hey guys
suppose i m doin a async FIle to File sceenario using BPM(jst for educational purpose)both sender and receiver have different structure.
here is how i m trying to design this scenario
DATATYPES
DT_sender ,DT_receiver
MESSAGETYPES
MT_sender,MT_receiver
MESSAGE INTERFACE
Outbound async,Abstract async,Inbound,async,Abstract,async.
MESSAGE MAPPING
Outbound async<-> Abstract asyn (mapping 1) and Inbound asyn<->Abstract async.(mapping 2).
INTERFACE MAPPING
Outbound ayns<-> Abstract asyn(using mapping 1) and Inbound asyn<->Abstract async.(using mapping 2)
and then in BPM
Start>>Receive>>Send>>Stop.
Please let me know if my design serves the purpose.my main concern is for message mapping and interface mappin.
is it because BPM takes care of mapping that we dont define a mapping between Abstract<->Abstract interface?
also will the flow be something like this
DT_sender>>MT_sender>>Outbound async>>Abstract async>>BPM>>Abstract async>>Inbound async>>MT_receiver>>DT_receiver
thanx
ahmad
Hi,
To my knowledge BPM is concerned about Abstract interface.
When we say Abstract it can flow in the both the direction.
Regards
Agasthuri Doss
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi Ahmad -
I have to assume that by not having a mapping/transformation step in the BPM, you intend to just pass the message through. In that case, you only need one abstract interface. But assuming you have two mappings as you have described, this would mean the target message resulting from the first mapping would be the source message in your second mapping - implying you're trying to map the message back to it's original format. For test purposes, that's fine, but doesn't make much sense. Maybe you can clarify more what you're trying to do.
Regards,
Jin
Hi Ahmad -
<i>>>>my source and target structures are different</i>
You only need one mapping then. In your case, it could be at the inbound end of the BPM or the outbound end. Unless your mapping to some intermediate format, which it doesn't sound like you're doing, you don't need another mapping.
The abstract interface will use whatever the target message type is of your first mapping.
Regards.
Jin
thanx Jin
so now i have to design my scenario like this
Datatypes:
DT_sender,DT_receiver
Messagetypes
MT_sender,MT_receiver
Message interface
Outboud,Inbound,Abstract(using DT_receiver)
Message mappin
DT_sender<->DT_receiver
Interface mapping
by making use of Message mappin
does dis sound ok to u?
also why i m making just one abstract interface even my sender and receiver are different and also why i m makin that one abstract interface make use of target message type of mapping?
thanx
ahmad
Hi Ahmad -
>>>why i m making just one abstract interface even my sender and receiver are different
In your scenario, you're not really doing anything within the BPM (just a pass through from Receive step to Send step). In that sense, you can essentially accomplish this scenario without having BPM in between at all - same result if you take BPM out. But since you're just testing and getting a feel for it, this is fine.
<i>>>>why i m makin that one abstract interface make use of target message type of mapping</i>
Before message is sent to BPM, you mentioned you're going to have a mapping. Since you're BPM process is the receiver initially, the process will receive mapped message.
><i>>>Message mappin
>>>DT_sender<->DT_receiver</i>
Use MTs here.
Regards,
Jin
User | Count |
---|---|
81 | |
9 | |
9 | |
7 | |
7 | |
6 | |
6 | |
6 | |
5 | |
4 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.