W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2003

RE: Proposed text on reliability in the web services architecture

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:17:53 -0800
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IGEJLEPAJBPHKACOOKHNKEIGDBAA.arkin@intalio.com>

I definitely agree. I think if this discussion is not bringing any value to
the WSA WG we should just end it.

arkin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 1:36 PM
> To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
> Subject: RE: Proposed text on reliability in the web services
> architecture
>
>
>
> As much as I admire the intelligence and experience that is
> poured into this
> thread, it has gone on for some weeks now and has rather lost
> touch with the
> original subject -- actual text for the WSA document on the
> various meanings
> of "reliability" and how to address it.
>
> This leads me to suggest some points of netiquitte for this list:
>
> - It is where the WS Architecture WG does its technical work.
> It's not for
> general discussions of the philosophical issues surrounding Web services.
> Consider moving threads to www-ws@w3.org or xml-dev@xml.org when they
> diverge from the work of the WSA WG.  (I realize that www-ws looks like a
> DAML-S mailing list, but that is not its intended purpose!).
>
> - Remove everyone whom you know is on the mailing list from the
> To: and CC:
> fields.  I suspect that we all get far more mail than we want already, and
> duplicates of the same message are not appreciated.
>
> - Please, PLEASE use the subject line appropriately.  The current
> subject of
> this thread is something like "Implementing a reliable delivery system" or
> "Why bother implementing a reliable delivery layer".  Most people
> "tune out"
> of mailing list threads after a couple of days, so as a rule of thumb a
> thread that has gone on for more than a few days has lost its readership.
> Anyone interested in having their thoughts read should change the subject
> line.
>
> - Know when to "agree to disagree."  Remember that pertinent comments that
> are made to www-wsa-comments pretty much MUST be tracked and formally
> responded to before any document can advance in the W3C process.
> You'll get
> a fairer hearing on a point by recording a formal Issue than by beating it
> to death on this list.
>
> - Again, the more you orient messages "I think the WSA should say
> XXX about
> YYY instead of | in addition to ZZZ", the more likely you are to actually
> have an impact.  We just had a face to face meeting and will be
> updating the
> documents very soon.  This is a VERY good time to suggest text on a) the
> general subject of the definition and importance of "reliability"; b) the
> various reliable messaging/delivery specs and what their common principles
> might be; c) alternative ways to achieve reliable *applications* without a
> reliable *infrastructure* (e.g., specific text and references about the
> importance of idempotence, etc. ... but don't just say "see the Waldo
> article" ... we've seen it!).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Champion
> [wearing my WSA WG co-chair hat and speaking at the request of
> the WG.  Dave
> Hollander will be posting his own thoughts, I believe]
Received on Sunday, 26 January 2003 17:18:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:13 GMT