- From: Jon Dart <jdart@tibco.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:04:23 -0800
- To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
I don't really want to go into a detailed comparison of WS-ReliableMessaging and the OASIS spec (or the related BEA specs that were published recently). However, the authors of WS-ReliableMessaging explictly wanted to be able to support binding to "native" reliable MOM systems, rather than only supporting reliability over HTTP. IMO the WS-ReliableMessaging spec is at least a better starting point for doing that. Personally, I would like to see these various standards efforts converge, if possible. --Jon Ugo Corda wrote: > 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 Monday, 17 March 2003 12:07:49 UTC