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

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

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:21:02 +0000
Message-Id: <2DC6E334-2FD5-11D9-AAFA-00039399DACE@arjuna.com>
Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>

>> 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.

It depends on your definition of broken then. I and others would say 
that wsa:Action is broken. I think your definition is: if it's a bug. 
Is that correct? Now that wasn't in the charter, or did I miss it?

>> 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... ;-)

True, but the intent stands ;-)


Mark Little,
Chief Architect,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.

Received on Saturday, 6 November 2004 09:22:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:07 UTC