Lists Home |
Date Index |
As a voice from inside WSRP, not only is the parrot decidedly not
dead, it's been a very busy little bird, hatching out a bevy of baby
birdies. You have the problem right, tho, there are too many of those
little birdies, and that makes for an awful lot of droppings, but a
shakeout is inevitable.
Also many several of those wannabe standards happen to work with and
complement each other. WSS which just passed its vote to become a
standard, is one of those which is meant to work with the others, but
it does have one no vote that has to now be addressed, but it is one
of the few of those listed besides WSRP that actually HAS done passed
that hurdle.So while it may be too easy to start a TC, it certainly
is anything but easy to get a draft passed as a standard. And that's
after the internal battles, and every one I have participated in (3),
has had its share and then some of those battles...
That approval process for OASIS happens to require both an IPR test
and the test of having three OASIS member companies at least (and
usually it is six or more) publicly vouch that they have used it
successfully. Most of those haven't finished the initial work-up and
approval of requirements, let alone had several iteration drafts
tested and tweaked, and are nothing more than trial balloons, which
will, hopefully, drift away in the wind. Undoubtedly some potentially
valuable ones will drift away and some quite horrible ones won't, but
that's the way the word. BTW a standard is not a standard unless it
Most of the OASIS WS do not actually compete, and I expect some to
be combined, as WSRP ended up combining two predecessors into one TC
and standard. It took 18 months to get to the point where the first
draft could be put up for a public review. So there is a lot of real
work that goes into it.
Don't be too quick to throw out the bathwater. One of the babies in
there might be worth keeping.
It's tedious, I know. And I can think of bunches of things I would
much rather do, but the alternatives tend to be even less desireable.
At 3:33 PM -0500 4/2/04, David Megginson wrote:
>Jim Rankin wrote:
>> Would anyone here like to argue that the list found in
>> is coherent, or sensible, or viable, or generally that the parrot is
>> not dead?
>>I wish that we could just look at the "Updated:" date on your post
>>and categorize this with some of the other things posted
>I wish I'd read those other things, but I did go and look at Tim's
>blog. Ouch. It's bizarre seeing all of those WS-* specs out there,
>when we haven't even had a chance to gain much real experience using
>SOAP at the basic RPC level. The WS-Parrot is not dead per se: it
>was never given a chance to hatch.
>All the best,
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
Fax: By Request