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: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:07:07 -0000
Message-ID: <019601c4c57a$b47a4350$850a090a@exhp>
To: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>

> Mark,
>
> Actually, the idea of making all things optional is essentially similar to
> that of making the spec itself optional; if one is a bad approach so is
the
> other. In both cases you end up compromising our ability to interoperate.

I think that's a fairly subjective statement. Who is interoperationg with
whom at the moment? Oh, yes, the writers of the original submission! Now
where was that developed? Oh, yes, in private, without the input of the
wider audience in this TC.

Look, this is either an open standards process or it isn't. Either you want
to get wider industry adoption and comment, or you don't. Which is it?

I don't see how making this specific field optional affects interoperability
at all. In fact, as I've tried to show, it makes it easier because we're not
forcing one implementation choice on everyone where it simply hasn't been
proven to be a general requirement. Let's not blow this thing out of all
proportion either: I'm not suggesting we make everything optional or that we
start writing this stuff from scratch. I am suggesting that we take each
issue on its merits.

Mark.

----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.

www.arjuna.com


>
> Paco
>
>
>
>
>
>                       Mark Little
>                       <mark.little@arjuna.com>        To:       "Martin
Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
>                       Sent by:                        cc:       "David
Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
>                       public-ws-addressing-req
<public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
>                       uest@w3.org                     Subject:  Re:
Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)
>
>
>                       11/06/2004 04:18 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I'm OK with a particular service requiring the presence of an action.
> >> I'm not OK with requiring every message to carry one even when the
> >> service they are destined for doesn't use it. This is where
> >> we ended up
> >> in the XMLP WG and I think its a good compromise position.
> >
> > If a service doesn't require wsa:Action, then perhaps it shouldn't be
> > usign WS-Addressing?
>
> Not a very good approach to addressing issues in general though, is it?
> "If you don't like what's there, then use something else?" How are we,
> as an industry, expected to try to standardize on things if we can't
> discuss them in an open and honest manner? If we follow your question
> to its logical conclusion, then let's close this working group now so
> we can all get on with other things.
>
> Mark.
>
> ----
> Mark Little,
> Chief Architect,
> Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
>
> www.arjuna.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 10:06:23 GMT

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