TN is a excellent solution, when IS communicate with partner with a particular DOCTYPE. I need the feedback of community on TN in the following issue.
WM as a middlewire solution in our EAI implementation works as a router to communicate with 2 backend (differnet) Networking element to perform the task and send the result back to GUI as initiated by GUI.
In this scenario IS communicate with same networking element with differnet XML as defined by Networking element Interface, for each individual transaction.
In this scenarion, I want to introduce TN to communicate with the Networking element, which is now achieve through a direct HTTP communication. How far I am correct and whether it is achievable or not ?
Feel free to ask me any question, if I am not clear in expressing the purpose ?

It can be done but is probably not advisable. Using TN for request/reply operations requires using techniques that complicate the integration. Is there a specific issue you’re trying to address?

It sounds like you are proposing to use TN to manage a custom conversation between your Network elements.

TN has a facility to manage conversations where you can define synchronous and asynchronous conversations.

We have also essentially done this outside of the conversation manager by defining various doc types in TN and processing rules (and their associated IS flows) to take the appropriate action.

I can’t offer too much expertise or experience with the conversation manager.

We went the way of the custom conversation because our client requirements forced us down that path. It definitely complicates matters. In our case - handling the possibility of failed transport between our clients server and the hub required some careful implementation.

Hope this helps. Good luck!