|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: Interchage control number sequence.
I want to think that in practice there is no guarantee that
interchanges will all be received faithfully in sequence. Even though
> you post them to your VAN in sequence, who is to say that they'll
be downloaded and processed in exactly that order on the receiving
end. You don't know anything about the interconnect timing and
internal mailbag batching that goes on.
I so want to think that they should be treated like a TCP/IP stack,
where complete accountability is required, but exact sequential order
of receipt is not.
Suppose 64 and 66 are received in one batch. The missing 65 is a
warning, but I would consider it valid if it shows up in the next
batch. And then it should be an alert if it doesn't show up after
several batches. Do we have any in-practice overdue thresholds on
what would make a missing 65 considered unreceived?
Suppose a set of interchanges were in a mailbag that had a
transmission error. It was later retried successfully, but not before
another mailbag went before it.
Another thing is that in the ASC X12 arena, interchanges are not
usually acknowledged. So if you're not receiving back a TA1, then you
are relying on the 997 AK1's to cite the child groups and leaving
your 65's children unacknowledged.
I would think it comes down to how well your TP's client software can
deal with that situation.
I'm talking in theory here without checking to see what ASC has to
say about it.
Andrew
--- In EDI-L@y..., "yliuaaa" <yliuaaa@y...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm developing an edi software that builds interchanges and then
send
> them to VAN using EDIINT. When an interchange is built, is it
> necessary the control numbers have to be in sequence when they
arrive
> at trading parterners?
>
> What am I doing here is the following:
>
> I first have one process which builds interchanges. The control
> numbers of the interchanges are in sequence for the same trading
> partners. Then I have another process, which pick up those
> interchange files and send them to VAN in random order, so the
> documents arrive at trading partners would not be necessary in
> sequence. Is that a problem for X12 and/or Edifact?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Yajun
|
 |
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
