RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging

Message
  -----Original Message-----
  From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
  Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 1:45 PM
  To: Assaf Arkin; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org; Ugo Corda; www-ws-arch@w3.org
  Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging


  I'm interested, but are we the ones to do it?  One would think that the
RM-TC would be.

  I'm sure members of the RM-TC are doing an apples to apples comparison of
the two specs. But I'm trying to think of the world out there, the community
of users that use these WS technology to solve real business problems.
They're scratching their heads trying to decide whether WS-RM(1) is
different from WS-RM(2), why the world needs both, will they interoperate or
will we end up using one and which one would it be.

  I'm sorry, but I don't agree with David. I don't think that they should be
spending their days slowly and carefully reading overlapping specs trying to
find Waldo. Surely the authors of the spec know where Waldo is hiding, can't
they just tell us?

  arkin


  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