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

RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:44:52 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817D63@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com>, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org, "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
I'm interested, but are we the ones to do it?  One would think that the
RM-TC would be.
 
It seemed to me, too, that the differences were on the minor side -- but
probably looking at these nuances is valuable.  As I mentioned before,
however, I think that the new spec has a FAR better discussion of what
the spec is supposed to do and what its limitations are.  I think at the
very least the RM-TC could benefit from that.
 
What difference does it make why the sponsors of the new spec chose to
do it?  It's part of the landscape now.  If the differences are fairly
minor it bodes well for integrating the various inputs.  Of course, I do
not know for a fact that it has been submitted to the RM-TC -- but
surely it will be.  IMHO it would be VERY weird not to.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Assaf Arkin
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 3:05 PM
To: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org; 'Ugo Corda'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of
WS-ReliableMessaging


I agree with Ugo. Reading through the abstract it's obvious that we have
two specifications that solve the same problem. Is there a value in
that?
 
I actually dug deeper into the specs and I can tell that there are some
differences. But most of us don't have the time to compare green apples
to red apples. It would have been much easier if someone could present a
list of the difference. If WS-ReliableMessaging does something better
than WS-RM then clearly it could be summarized in two pages and
presented to the WS community so we can judge.
 
Maybe they are so different that we need to have both. I don't see that,
but a more educated explanation would help. Maybe the changes are minor,
in which case such a comparison could help the OASIS TC in addressing
the problem of reliable messaging in a much better way.
 
Am I the only one interested in seeing such a comparison?
 
arkin

	-----Original Message-----
	From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]
	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 16:45:13 GMT

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