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

RE: Does RM make a qualitative difference?

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:36:00 -0500
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4049BCE8E@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 4:20 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Does RM make a qualitative difference?
> If that's correct, is it enough to actually make a qualitative
> difference to an application developer?  Or are they still 
> going to have
> to deal with lost messages?  I believe it's the latter, which is why I
> suggest that our time would be best spent focusing on how to help
> application developers deal with reliable coordination.

0.5% of the traffic on the Internet is an enormous number. I wouldn't scorn
it, even if your guesstimates are correct.

But anyway, this discussion is being driven by two things: First, the fact
is that people (BEA mentioned themselves here) are rolling their own SOAP
headers to provide acknowledgement services.  We're exploring the idea of
finding someone in the W3C (perhaps XMLP, perhaps a new WG) who might want
to produce a Recommendation on how to do this.  Whatever the costs and
benefits of this at a theoretical/architectural level, the benefits can only
be magnified by having a "standard".

Second, this doesn't obviate the need for a better architectural
understanding of "reliable coordination" at the application level, or even
of a W3C Recommendation on how to do that in a standardized way.  It does
appear that leveraging the SOAP header/extensibility model to do RM at the
message level is "low hanging fruit" (especially considering ebXML's prior
work in this area) and some want to harvest it.  Considering the wealth of
experience in this area, and the quality of the discussion so far, I see no
reason to rein them in.

I'd suggest that you kick off a discussion of how to deal with this issue
effectively at the application level rather than trying to discourage those
who hope to deal with it at the infrastructure level.  There is room in the
WSA document for both.  As usual, I'll argue that the best way forward is to
discuss when one or the other is more appropriate, or if they can complement
each other, and not place them in theoretical opposition to each other.
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 16:36:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:01 UTC