- From: Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:32:22 -0600
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Goal statement [1]: "reliable, stable, and predictably evolvable web services" Strawman defns. of reliability and stability were presented in [1], and some good discussions ensued. The "stability" defn. seems to be fine, though "reliability" defn is being worked on. A defn. for "predictably evolving ws" is still (predictably?) evolving. Should we require "X amount" of reliability for all Web Services? The consensus seems to be "no" [2], though definition and recommended practices are within scope. In [6] there are arguments on why some reliability requirements should be in scope. [3] describes how a stable WS can evolve predictably. [4] suggests that, again, requiring stability of web services is not OK. There is an idea that web services should use meta description of the services to describe their stability and predictable evolution [4]. In [5], there is a suggestion that WSDL should describe when the interface will be invalid ("time-to-live guarantee"). [5] also proposes that a service dispatcher could remember the service versions instead of the services. Though stable as of today, there are no reliability guarantees apart from "best effort" for this summary. Further, YMMV on the predictable evolution of this summary:-)) Regards, -Suresh [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0309.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0357.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0351.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0361.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0366.html [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0363.html
Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 19:32:44 UTC