Re: Seeking closure on D-AR019.1.1 and D-AR019.1.3

Hey Suresh,

On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 03:19:12PM -0500, Damodaran, Suresh wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> Actually, I do agree with your basic concern expressed below - reliable
> messaging
> alone does not ensure reliable "processing" of web services.
> The earlier discussions went down the rat hole because we spent much energy
> in beating reliable messaging, which I think is an essential element here.
> 
> How about we say
> 
> D-AR019.1.3 Web Services Architecture will incorporate support for reliable
> invocation of Web Services.
> 
> "invocation" will require reliable messaging, and reliable execution of any
> choreography, correct
> interpretation of semantics, etc. The biggest basket you can find.

I appreciate your support here, but I think you've misunderstood me.
I don't believe that "reliable invocation" is required either.

If I understand the position of the group (or at least of those members
who have spoken up on the topic), they see unreliability in the network
as an issue that has to be addressed.  And I agree.  But I also hear
that they want it addressed by building a "transparency layer" which
fits in above the unreliable network, and exposes a reliable network.
I consider that a mistake.

In my view, the end goal here is to be able to *do things* reliably.
For example, ensure that both the customer and vendor agree that 4 pairs
of shoes have been ordered.  Reliable messaging is one way of doing
that, but there are other ways that have demonstrated success over the
Internet (where reliable messaging has not, despite attempts to deploy
it) - in particular, coordination languages in the form of application
protocols.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 17:08:25 UTC