Telecom Billing Service: Prognosis Fusion message Billing

----message billing or document billing for the convergence of prognosis

Starting to sort out some of the ideas of this thing, the first one to think about is file billing or consumer billing, although it's a question, but given the fact that I've been doing OCS for the last few years, and I'm a very easy-to-brainwash person, it's been pretty much news-billed. This is inevitable, so please give us more valuable advice. However, the title should read: Why to use the message billing, haha.

One of the main differences between the offline billing system (OFCS) and the online billing system (OCS) is that OFCS uses file billing, OCS uses message billing, and provides a prognosis fusion, and has been OFCS the ability to provide message billing. However, file system and message billing, in fact, is only the interface protocol between the various modules, the process should not be different. That is, the ability to have the message billing, not just the word to the message and then billing, but should be understood as the document billing and message billing process of unification.

While message billing has some advantages over file billing, there are some disadvantages. The obvious advantages and disadvantages arise because of the different granularity of billing. The message is more granular, the file billing data source is a file, a file contains n a statement, and the message billing data source is a message, a message only a single word (and no one to pay, I write so much nonsense why ...). Finer granularity, which represents a more granular and more convenient, such as load balancing, resource allocation, and so on, when doing billing tasks and task tracking, the disadvantage is actually obvious. Finer-grained task allocation and tracking means less efficiency and more difficulty in management.

But these are not the root causes of file billing or message billing. On this issue, I think the process is the focus. There are two key points, the first is the unified process, the second is to achieve business components.

Whether the process is unified or business components, message billing has a great advantage. First of all, the process of unification at this level, file billing has to be over-billed to the message, if you want to meet the demand for online billing, file granularity of the real-time billing is not guaranteed. and the offline billing statement into the message, the basic can meet the demand.

There are also advantages at this level of business component. Business components require an abstraction of the input and output of business components, one of which is the standardization of interface protocols, in which message billing is more powerful than file billing. The DCC message Protocol of the online billing system is one of the 3GPP standards, with a mature field definition, which is more uniform and closer to the billing itself than the file class. The meaning of this sentence is actually, the format of the message, the basic definition of the good, the consideration is more comprehensive, the format of the document, they have to define their own, inevitably there is such a poorly thought-out place.

The argument is: Since the process is unified, why not component? Business components are actually the basis of a unified process, and unification is actually a change, and if you do business components, the process is configurable, and it becomes easy to change. Take the file billing and message billing, file billing is the first to reconcile, warehousing, and then deduct the balance, message billing is the first deduction of balance, and then close the account, warehousing. If the three sub-processes of balance, accounting and warehousing are deducted, their interfaces have been abstracted into file billing and message billing is available, and the process unification is not difficult.

May also ask: since the business component, then the prepaid and post-payment billing process can naturally be arbitrarily combined, why also unified? The so-called prognosis Fusion, the first should be online billing system and offline billing system on the package support capacity, the unity of User Service ability, the process of unification is the premise. The abstraction at the business level is the best abstraction.

So there is no contradiction between the two, which in fact reflects the defenders and developers look at the difference between the point of view, for the maintenance of the point of view, naturally hope that the process is unified, the best is to enter a single word, output a result, the middle of the process is not so messy, because our needs are complex, this idea is naïve. Although research and development also hope this, but research and development to consider a long-term, want to cut the process into a paragraph, do some abstraction, make business components. Changes are only in a paragraph to make changes, and even what new needs to take a paragraph can be used, the idea is sometimes excessive, maintenance is very inconvenient.

Pull away, think of a joke, said that someone to cross the river, write the shell of the rope to swim the person dragged past, VB cut a bit of wood made a ship to transport the past, PB made a lot of wood frame of the bridge to the people shipped over, VC brought steel and cement ... to what extent the business components are abstracted, In fact, in the final analysis is the business needs exactly what it looks like, specifically how to do, it depends on how many people do not want to stones.

Installed x for a long time, too tired. Think about it later and pull the question again.

Telecom Billing Service: Prognosis Fusion message Billing