- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:44:52 -0600
- To: "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com>, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org, "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
- Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817D63@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
I'm interested, but are we the ones to do it? One would think that the RM-TC would be. It seemed to me, too, that the differences were on the minor side -- but probably looking at these nuances is valuable. As I mentioned before, however, I think that the new spec has a FAR better discussion of what the spec is supposed to do and what its limitations are. I think at the very least the RM-TC could benefit from that. What difference does it make why the sponsors of the new spec chose to do it? It's part of the landscape now. If the differences are fairly minor it bodes well for integrating the various inputs. Of course, I do not know for a fact that it has been submitted to the RM-TC -- but surely it will be. IMHO it would be VERY weird not to. -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Assaf Arkin Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 3:05 PM To: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org; 'Ugo Corda'; www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging I agree with Ugo. Reading through the abstract it's obvious that we have two specifications that solve the same problem. Is there a value in that? I actually dug deeper into the specs and I can tell that there are some differences. But most of us don't have the time to compare green apples to red apples. It would have been much easier if someone could present a list of the difference. If WS-ReliableMessaging does something better than WS-RM then clearly it could be summarized in two pages and presented to the WS community so we can judge. Maybe they are so different that we need to have both. I don't see that, but a more educated explanation would help. Maybe the changes are minor, in which case such a comparison could help the OASIS TC in addressing the problem of reliable messaging in a much better way. Am I the only one interested in seeing such a comparison? arkin -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:46 PM To: 'Ugo Corda'; www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging I suggest you need to read the specs slower rather than quicker :-) -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ugo Corda Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:44 PM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging Probably most people in the group have had a chance by now to see this week's announcement of the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging (see [1]). After a quick reading of the spec, I have to say that I don't see any major architectural/technical differences compared to the OASIS WS-ReliableMessaging TC activity and its input document WS-Reliability (or at least differences big enough to justify going a completely separate way). I really hope that some WSA members whose companies published the new reliability spec can help me clarify the previous point and provide some architectural/technical rationale for the separate publication. Thank you, Ugo P.S. No need to answer if the rationale for publication is a political one (I can figure that out by myself ...). [1] http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-03-13-a.html
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2003 16:45:13 UTC