RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging

Speaking from a technology consumer perspective, I completely agree with Assaf.

I'm quite comfortable with WS-Reliability (in solving my existing problem 
in this aspect) and have not much incentive to look at the another spec 
covering the same area.  I'm interested to see a condensed comparison 
summary with WS-Reliability because I'm not given time to *slowly* read 
every spec.  And I doubt other technology consuming companies will do that 
either.

I've found it is usually one of the following reasons why I start carefully 
read a spec.
1) It is the FIRST proposed standard solution to solve my existing problem 
(e.g. I read WS-Reliability immediately after it is announced)
2) SOMEONE TOLD ME that this new spec address a better scope than the old 
spec, or have a better architectural approach to the existing problem (e.g. 
same reason I look at XML-Schema when we are using DTD).
3) Some SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRY MOMENTUM and vendors backing up the new spec 
(this is a political reason.  BPEL is a good example)

Best regards,
Ricky

At 02:20 PM 3/15/2003 -0800, Assaf Arkin wrote:
>
>-----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>http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-03-13-a.html 
>