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

RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:33:46 -0500
To: <www-ws-arch-request@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch-request@w3.org>, "'Ugo Corda'" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ECEDLFLFGIEENIPIEJJPEEEBDMAA.anne@manes.net>
Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessagingThere are
differences. The primary difference that I see (after a quick glance) is
that WS-ReliableMessaging relies on/works with WS-Policy and the other GXA
specifications. WS-Reliability is a standalone SOAP extension. Also,
WS-ReliableMessaging has defined Addressability separately (which decouples
asynchronicity from reliability). I think that WS-ReliableMessaging and
WS-Addressability are better, more flexible, more thorough, more
comprehensive specifications. Even so, the specs address exactly the same
problem space. 

The primary difference is political. The authors of WS-ReliableMessaging
have not signed up to participate in the WS-RM TC. I'm not sure that it's a
given that the authors will submit it to the WS-RM TC. I'd say that it bodes
badly for the standardization effort. 

Anne
  -----Original Message-----
  From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]
  Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 4:05 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 17:33:17 GMT

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