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

RE: D-AC004 D CVX

From: Austin, Daniel <Austin.D@ic.grainger.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 15:06:58 -0500
Message-ID: <E0995D588DC3D211BB8D00805FFE353907F72B08@ic.ic.grainger.com>
To: "'michael.mahan@nokia.com'" <michael.mahan@nokia.com>, RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com, sharad.garg@intel.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Just a note: the original text on the programming model was a direct quote
from our charter.

-----Original Message-----
From: michael.mahan@nokia.com [mailto:michael.mahan@nokia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 2:27 PM
To: RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com; sharad.garg@intel.com; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AC004 D CVX


I like the attempt to retool this goal. 
 
I have raised the point previously that I did not agree with the original
goal wording - especially the binding 
between 'platform independence' and 'not precluding programming models' .
These seem orthogonal. Also, 
platform independence is already part of the 'consistency' goal (AC011). 
 
I still believe that this goal, AC004, should strip off the reference to
platform independence and focus on the 
independent programming model issue. Device independence and this expanded
meaning of communication 
modes could also argueably move to the 'consistency' goal too, but I heavily
advocate its inclusion somewhere.
 
My preferred phrase for this comes from Roger's below text:
 
"will not assume any particular programming model"
 
and then some examples or possible prograaming modes, for illustrative
purposes. 
 
Mike
 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
Sent: May 06, 2002 05:39 PM
To: 'Garg, Sharad'; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AC004 D CVX


I think that your explanatory addition makes this TONS better.  I still
don't really like the "not preclude any programming model" very much, but I
can live with it. 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Garg, Sharad [mailto:sharad.garg@intel.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 4:31 PM
To: 'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AC004 D CVX


Roger,
 
What I was trying to point out was that the current model of web services
generally assumes that communicating parties are on-line at the same time.
 
What we want to achieve is that this should not be a limiting factor in web
services model. There may be specific web services architecture requirements
imposed by devices connected wirelessly and intermittently. So, how about
rephrasing D-AC004 to something like this:

ensures platform and device independence of Web Services in a way that does
not preclude any programming model nor assume any specific mode of
communications so that wireless, intermittently connected, mobile and
strongly connected devices are supported

Regards,
Sharad
--

-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:23 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: FW: D-AC004 D CVX



The following "D" vote refers to: 

ensures platform and device independence of Web Services in a way that does
not preclude any programming model nor assume any particular mode of
communication between the individual components

 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)  
Sent:   Monday, May 06, 2002 11:52 AM 
To:     'member-wsa-ballots@w3.org' 
Subject:        D-AC004 D CVX 

I think that saying that we are not going to "assume any particular mode of
communication between the individual components" is not well stated and/or
not really true.  See D-AR004.3, which says that the architecture will use
"XML based techniques ..." (which I think is well stated, incidentally), the
charter of the WG and so on.  If there is something really to be said here I
think it should be said more accurately.  Otherwise I think that this
statement should not be made.

In like spirit, it would seem to me better to say that one will not assume
any particular programming model rather than that no programming model will
be precluded.  The latter statement is, in my view, asking for trouble since
it could be interpreted to include really nasty, stupid or unsafe models.
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 16:08:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:59 GMT