- From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:09:13 -0400
- To: "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
+1 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com> To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:14 AM Subject: RE: proposal for eliminating <message> > > > I agree with others that it is indeed a concern of ours. Yes, > > I am fully aware of the kinds of changes this will mean to > > BPEL for sure, but there are other changes that affect them > > and things like JAX-RPC too. So there's no question that > > things that depend/build on WSDL 1.1 will have to go thru > > major changes/upgrades as well. > > What Sanjiva says is patently true. There is so much that is changing in > WSDL 1.2 compared to 1.1 that I am of the opinion that it is more than > simply a point release. > > People expect point releases to look and feel mostly the same, perhaps a few > additions and a few bug fixes, but much of the excellent work that has > happened in this group has pushed WSDL far past that. A trivial illustration > of the magnitude of change is the renaming of portTypes. Less trivial > features are things like removal of message. > > If the outcome of this current round of work does indeed look significantly > different to WSDL 1.1 then I really think the group should consider renaming > it WSDL 2.0 since this would provide a clear line in the sand for the > development community. > > The benefits are that backwards compatibility (and its myriad of sub-issues) > go away. The downside is that the community might not be prepared to adopt > such a big new step as a 2.0 version (though this is effectively what they > will get even if it is still called 1.2). > > What do people think? Is this a legitimate move within the W3C regulations? > > Jim > > >
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 12:10:22 UTC