RE: [RTF] AC019 proposal to WSA WG

Mark,

My take is that if RM is a requirement, then it's in --
in the doc, in someone's face (no derogative intended) --
regardless of what architecture style it'll turn out to be.
The architects will just have to make the style fit (RM).
Letting style-yet-to-be influence a requirement is like
letting the tail wag the dog.  Sometimes it happens;
but it shouldn't be the norm, as in this case.  

Joe Hui
Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
==============================================

> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:10 PM
> To: Joseph Hui
> Cc: Damodaran, Suresh; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [RTF] AC019 proposal to WSA WG
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 07:43:22PM -0700, Joseph Hui wrote:
> > RM is a term for a solution class, which is generic.
> > It's not a solution instance, which is specific.
> 
> Joe, obviously one person's "specific" is another's "generic".  My
> belief is that "reliable messaging" is too specific to be a 
> requirement
> at this point in time.
> 
> "Reliable messaging" is generally regarded as the ability to ensure
> end-to-end message delivery optionally with QoSs such as ordering.
> Agreed?  If so, it is this form of solution that I object to. 
>  Reliable
> messaging is not suitable for all architectural styles.  And 
> given that
> we haven't picked a style yet (though we're required to integrate
> cleanly with a state transfer based one, the Web), I suggest that it's
> too early to get that specific.
> 
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 23:10:18 UTC