W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2004

RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:29:03 -0800
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9032B89FF@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

It's worth mentioning that Choreology has been proposing an even more "meta" approach to transaction management, which is intended to abstract from single specific proposals like WS-CAF, WS Transaction Framework and BTP. They are proposing modifications to WS-Chor and BPEL that go in that direction, and I think their position is interesting from an architectural perspective. As far as I know nobody has yet reviewed this approach within the WS-Chor and BPEL groups, and verified that is sound and feasible.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:51 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:18 PM
> > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues
> > 
> > 
> > The concluding section of the WSA document should probably 
> > [at least the editors on the call today agreed!] be a listing 
> > and short description of the architectural issues that a) are 
> > significant for the WS industry; b) we cannot say anything at 
> > all definitive about; and c) cross WG / organizational 
> > boundaries, so there's not an obvious group that can resolve 
> > the issue on their own.
> >
> ...
> 
> > 
> > So, are all of these really in this category?  What else is 
> > there?  Can anyone propose (or point to) a clear, 1-paragraph 
> > or so description of the issue and resolution options for any 
> > of these?
> 
> I just remembered WS-CAF .... See Eric's article
> http://www.webservices.org/index.php/article/articleview/1297/1/24/
> As I understand it, this aspires to be a framework within 
> which different
> transaction, correlation, orchestration, etc. specs can be 
> bound and not a
> uber-spec replacing all of them.
> 
> So, is there a meta-architectural issue here, or is this essentially a
> "political" issue of choosing the right specs for orchestration,
> transactions, etc.?  Is there anything we could possibly 
> agree to say about
> this in the closing section of the WSA document? 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 11:29:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:24 GMT