RE: Status D-AG0019: reliable, stable, and predictably evolvable Web Services

Hi Daniel,

{I am not using many references in this quick email)
Actually, this goal is an outgrowth of D-AG0007 that states
as "reliability, stability, pred. evolvable WS architecture."
It was noticed by several of us that "reliability, stability, and pred.
evolvable
web services" is not championed, and I volunteered for that.
Stability of WS may be a WSDWG goal, though I suspect it has broader
ramifications.
Reliability and predictably evolvable web services seem to be worthy
WSA goals (IMHO). A later email from me [99] might help to look at the
latest on this goal.
A related matter is something I brought up (but didn't follow through)
during a con-call couple of weeks back about "the thing and the
architecture," which I suspect will have some bearing on this goal and some
others.

Not sure whether I have further confused you:-)

Regards,
-Suresh 

[99] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0437.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin, Daniel [mailto:Austin.D@ic.grainger.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 4:52 PM
To: Damodaran, Suresh; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Status D-AG0019: reliable, stable, and predictably
evolvable Web Services


Hi Suresh,

	To be honest, I don't understand this draft goal. To me, this seems
like a goal for the Web Services Definition Language Working Group, rather
than the WSAWG. Our reference architecture is of course intended to support
web services that fit this description. However, we already have goals that
explicitly describe the architecture in those terms. Therefore this goal
seems somewhat redundant. Perhaps this should be put to the WSDL WG instead?

Regards,

D-



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 6:32 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Status D-AG0019: reliable, stable, and predictably evolvable
> Web Services
> 
> 
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 27 March 2002 18:12:11 UTC