RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging

Yes, it would be great to have a generic spec that worked for mapping to MOMs or other mechanisms -- confining the definition of reliability to the use of existing MOM infrastructure seems restrictive.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Dart [mailto:jdart@tibco.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 12:04 PM
To: Ugo Corda
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Questions prompted by the publication of
WS-ReliableMessaging



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 13:29:32 UTC