W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > December 2002

RE: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? (was RE: Agenda for 5 December WSA telcon)

From: Sandeep Kumar <sandkuma@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:50:09 -0800
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GEEIIPGIGJHOLHFLNCJAGEELDBAA.sandkuma@cisco.com>

Mark,
Could you elaborate as to why you would be against HTTPR?
Thanks,
Sandeep

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Mark Baker
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:52 AM
To: David Orchard
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? (was RE: Agenda
for 5 December WSA telcon)



On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:41:23AM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> I think that a simple acknowledgement protocol in soap headers would be
very
> useful and hit an 80/20 point.  We've consistently heard from customers
and
> partners that reliable messaging is very important to them.  I support the
> discussion and architectural description of reliable messaging in this
> forum.

I agree that would be useful, but I think it's a long way from an 80/20
solution.

> And saying that reliable messaging protocols don't make sense is akin to
> saying that we don't need tcp as ip already exists.

Maybe I wasn't clear.  I'm for "reliable messaging protocols" if they're
application layer extensions.  I'm (generally) against them if they're
transport protocols (like HTTPR).

MB
--
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 13:50:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:11 GMT