W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

RE: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 01:19:39 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633803E00B6E@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Little
> Sent: 06 November 2004 08:50
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > I can imagine more thoughts like "My point is still made!  
> The site has
> > the choice of making it mandatory or not, an optional Action that a
> > service requires is the same thing".
> >
> > But this is where the analogy breaks down.  The vendors at the table
> > build SOAP processing software and standardization of SOAP 
> constructs
> > facilitates interop.  We are not building standardized data entry
> > languages - though UBL exists in a separate forum.  If we can
> > standardize WSA:Action, we can accrue benfits to all software that
> > leverages WSA:Action.
> 
> Hmmm, I don't think this is an objective statement. What 
> you're saying 
> is that the vendors who have implemented products against a 
> proprietary 
> specification (as it was then) would suffer if this changed. However, 
> those vendors who haven't used WS-Addr, have implemented 
> their own, or 
> have used something like WS-MD, shouldn't be listened to? I hope not. 
> If it is the case, then come clean now. I, and I'm sure 
> others, aren't 
> in this to rubberstamp something.

But you are in a working group whose starting point is WS-Addressing,
just as the XMLP WG started with SOAP 1.1. If something in WS-Addressing
is broken, we should fix it. Otherwise, I'd rather move forward given
our timetable.

> 
> I want a WS-Addressing standard as quickly as possible for a 
> number of 
> reasons: product related as well as other standard/specification 
> related. So it's not in my interest to see this drag on and on. 

Great.

> However, what those vendors who weren't involved in the 
> original closed 
> and proprietary specification development do have, is experience that 
> perhaps the other vendors don't have. I hope that you and 
> others would 
> treat that with the same level of respect as you would give to each 
> other - on it's merits, rather than on who the individual(s) work for.
> 
> >
> > By retaining the status quo of Mandatory Action, all WS-A processors
> > have certainty about it's presence.
> >
> > Certainty has often led to accrued benefits.  An example 
> that I love is
> > the certainty of the Java Class libraries was a key reason 
> that people
> > switched from various flavours of Unix C++ to Java.
> >
> > There's also an old standards saw, which is that there 
> should be as few
> > optional components as possible.  There's a reason why that 
> saw exists,
> > to minimize interop problems.
> 
> There's also the old proverb about the Emperor's New Clothes.

I thought it was a fairy-tale... ;-)

Gudge
Received on Saturday, 6 November 2004 09:20:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT