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: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:05:43 -0800
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9081A49@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: <jdart@tibco.com>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

WS-Reliability does not seem to preclude supporting bindings other than HTTP. In fact the Abstract explicitly says "WS-Reliability is defined as SOAP header extensions, and is independent of the underlying protocol."

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Dart [mailto:jdart@tibco.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 9:04 AM
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Questions prompted by the publication of
> WS-ReliableMessaging
> 
> 
> I don't really want to go into a detailed comparison of 
> WS-ReliableMessaging and the OASIS spec (or the related BEA 
> specs that 
> were published recently).
> 
> However, the authors of WS-ReliableMessaging explictly wanted 
> to be able 
> to support binding to "native" reliable MOM systems, rather than only 
> supporting reliability over HTTP. IMO the 
> WS-ReliableMessaging spec is 
> at least a better starting point for doing that.
> 
> Personally, I would like to see these various standards efforts 
> converge, if possible.
> 
> --Jon
> 
> Ugo Corda wrote:
> > 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 Monday, 17 March 2003 14:05:50 GMT

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