RE: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? (was RE: Agenda for 5 December WSA telcon)

WSA is protocol independent.

I'd like to be able to support identical reliability metrics regardless of
the underlying transfer protocol.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Sandeep Kumar
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 1:50 PM
> To: Mark Baker; David Orchard
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? (was RE: Agenda
> for 5 December WSA telcon)
>
>
>
> Mark,
> Could you elaborate as to why you would be against HTTPR?
> Thanks,
> Sandeep
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:52 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? (was RE: Agenda
> for 5 December WSA telcon)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:41:23AM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> > I think that a simple acknowledgement protocol in soap headers would be
> very
> > useful and hit an 80/20 point.  We've consistently heard from customers
> and
> > partners that reliable messaging is very important to them.  I
> support the
> > discussion and architectural description of reliable messaging in this
> > forum.
>
> I agree that would be useful, but I think it's a long way from an 80/20
> solution.
>
> > And saying that reliable messaging protocols don't make sense is akin to
> > saying that we don't need tcp as ip already exists.
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear.  I'm for "reliable messaging protocols" if they're
> application layer extensions.  I'm (generally) against them if they're
> transport protocols (like HTTPR).
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
>

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 14:07:12 UTC