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

RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:53:04 -0800
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9081A44@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Ah, that's a good one!

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:46 PM
To: Ugo Corda; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging


I suggest you need to read the specs slower rather than quicker :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ugo Corda
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:44 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging



Probably most people in the group have had a chance by now to see this week's announcement of the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging (see [1]).

After a quick reading of the spec, I have to say that I don't see any major architectural/technical differences compared to the OASIS WS-ReliableMessaging TC activity and its input document WS-Reliability (or at least differences big enough to justify going a completely separate way). 

I really hope that some WSA members whose companies published the new reliability spec can help me clarify the previous point and provide some architectural/technical rationale for the separate publication.

Thank you, 
Ugo 

P.S. No need to answer if the rationale for publication is a political one (I can figure that out by myself ...). 

[1] http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-03-13-a.html 
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2003 15:53:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:16 GMT