- From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:21:02 +0000
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
>> >> Hmmm, I don't think this is an objective statement. What >> you're saying >> is that the vendors who have implemented products against a >> proprietary >> specification (as it was then) would suffer if this changed. However, >> those vendors who haven't used WS-Addr, have implemented >> their own, or >> have used something like WS-MD, shouldn't be listened to? I hope not. >> If it is the case, then come clean now. I, and I'm sure >> others, aren't >> in this to rubberstamp something. > > But you are in a working group whose starting point is WS-Addressing, > just as the XMLP WG started with SOAP 1.1. If something in > WS-Addressing > is broken, we should fix it. Otherwise, I'd rather move forward given > our timetable. It depends on your definition of broken then. I and others would say that wsa:Action is broken. I think your definition is: if it's a bug. Is that correct? Now that wasn't in the charter, or did I miss it? > >> >> I want a WS-Addressing standard as quickly as possible for a >> number of >> reasons: product related as well as other standard/specification >> related. So it's not in my interest to see this drag on and on. > > Great. > >> However, what those vendors who weren't involved in the >> original closed >> and proprietary specification development do have, is experience that >> perhaps the other vendors don't have. I hope that you and >> others would >> treat that with the same level of respect as you would give to each >> other - on it's merits, rather than on who the individual(s) work for. >> >>> >>> By retaining the status quo of Mandatory Action, all WS-A processors >>> have certainty about it's presence. >>> >>> Certainty has often led to accrued benefits. An example >> that I love is >>> the certainty of the Java Class libraries was a key reason >> that people >>> switched from various flavours of Unix C++ to Java. >>> >>> There's also an old standards saw, which is that there >> should be as few >>> optional components as possible. There's a reason why that >> saw exists, >>> to minimize interop problems. >> >> There's also the old proverb about the Emperor's New Clothes. > > I thought it was a fairy-tale... ;-) > True, but the intent stands ;-) Mark. ---- Mark Little, Chief Architect, Arjuna Technologies Ltd. www.arjuna.com
Received on Saturday, 6 November 2004 09:22:11 UTC