- From: Garg, Sharad <sharad.garg@intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 14:31:02 -0700
- To: "'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)'" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
- Message-ID: <D9223EB959A5D511A98F00508B68C20C0AC2DF96@orsmsx108.jf.intel.com>
Roger, What I was trying to point out was that the current model of web services generally assumes that communicating parties are on-line at the same time. What we want to achieve is that this should not be a limiting factor in web services model. There may be specific web services architecture requirements imposed by devices connected wirelessly and intermittently. So, how about rephrasing D-AC004 to something like this: ensures platform and device independence of Web Services in a way that does not preclude any programming model nor assume any specific mode of communications so that wireless, intermittently connected, mobile and strongly connected devices are supported Regards, Sharad -- -----Original Message----- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:23 AM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: FW: D-AC004 D CVX The following "D" vote refers to: ensures platform and device independence of Web Services in a way that does not preclude any programming model nor assume any particular mode of communication between the individual components -----Original Message----- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:52 AM To: 'member-wsa-ballots@w3.org' Subject: D-AC004 D CVX I think that saying that we are not going to "assume any particular mode of communication between the individual components" is not well stated and/or not really true. See D-AR004.3, which says that the architecture will use "XML based techniques ..." (which I think is well stated, incidentally), the charter of the WG and so on. If there is something really to be said here I think it should be said more accurately. Otherwise I think that this statement should not be made. In like spirit, it would seem to me better to say that one will not assume any particular programming model rather than that no programming model will be precluded. The latter statement is, in my view, asking for trouble since it could be interpreted to include really nasty, stupid or unsafe models.
Received on Monday, 6 May 2002 17:32:16 UTC