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

RE: Status: D-AG0007 - reliable, stable, predictable evolution

From: Hao He <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 12:43:34 +1100
Message-ID: <686B9E7C8AA57A45AE8DDCC5A81596AB019ED677@sydthqems01.INT.TISA.COM.AU>
To: "'Anne Thomas Manes '" <anne@manes.net>, "'Hugo Haas '" <hugo@w3.org>, "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
I guess that there are two issues here: want-to and able-to.

It is a goal to provide a web service that is stable, reliable and
precictable. However,
any service provider may want to do other wise and there is nothing that can
stop them from doing that. You can always give a person a realiable and good
quality car but there is nothing
that can stop the person from crashing by purpose.

Hao  

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Thomas Manes
To: Hugo Haas; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Sent: 3/21/02 11:03 AM
Subject: RE: Status: D-AG0007 - reliable, stable, predictable evolution

Ramblings on the subject:

Web resources are not reliable, stable, or predictable. Links break all
the
time. Web sites aren't necessarily available 24 hours a day. Is it
appropriate to impose a higher level of reliability, stability, and
predictability on Web services?

I don't think it is. To some degree this issue is dealt with in the
realm of
discovery. If your link to a web service fails, you can rediscover it.
Not
all web services will be available all the time. Some web service
providers
may want to arbitrarily terminate the services that they offer.

I don't think it's within our charter to impose these requirements on
people
who build web services.

I do think it's appropriate to ensure the reliability, stability, and
predictability of both web services technology and web services
standards.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Hugo Haas
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:30 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Status: D-AG0007 - reliable, stable, predictable
evolution
>
>
> * Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com> [2002-03-14
> 17:48-0600]
> > Good point.
> > "reliability, stability, and predictable evolution of web services
> > technology"
> > is the non-goal that I referred to below, which we should make a
goal.
> >
> > "reliability, stability, and predictable evolution of web services
> > standards"
> > is the goal that was addressed in the proposal for D-AG0007.
> > Why?
> >  Because, web service architecture = framework of web services
standards
>
> I think that the third option (option 1 in her email) that Anne was
> raising deserves attention:
>
> * Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net> [2002-03-14 16:46-0500]
> > When we say "reliability, stability, and predictable evolution of
web
> > services" are we talking about the services themselves or the
technology
> > used to implement them, or perhaps the standards underneath the
> technology?
> > Perhaps we need to say, "reliability, stability, and
> predictable evolution
> > of web services technology" or "reliability, stability, and
predictable
> > evolution of web services standards"?
>
> I am cathing up on lots of threads, no I will ask the following: has
> "reliability, stability, and predictable evolution of [..] the
> services themselves" been discussed?
>
> What I have in mind is a service making use of others and therefore
> having a dependency on different services which have a particular
> version. One might say that the identifier for the service should
> change because it can be considered as a different service, but I
> guess that it's already part of the discussion about how to address
> the problem.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hugo
>
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ -
tel:+1-617-452-2092
>


Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 20:42:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:56 GMT