Jorgen:
We have a new OASIS TC to create a public standard for
reliable message exchanges between
endpoints. This is an area in which there is a
considerable amount of prior art. Not only do several
vendors offer products in this area but there are at least
two prior specifications. WS-ReliableMessaging
was accepted as input to the TC, WS-Reliability was
not. Nevertheless, it does exist and several
members of the WS-RX TC were involved in its
creation.
WS-RX is a large TC and includes members from a wide range
of companies with many different agendas.
These people will bring diverse requirements to the
TC. Requirements, perhaps, that we have never
contemplated. I think this is goodness. Many
smart people working together will produce a better
specification that holds up longer than a few people with
relatively narrow interests.
So, I'm not prepared to predict what the WS-RX will produce
and I'm not willing to bet that it will be close
to the WS-ReliableMessaging spec. In fact, my hunch
is that it will not. And this may be goodness.
So, in my personal view, we are embarking on a new
enterprise that will take us in directions that none of
us can predict and I want this new enterprise to have a new
name.
All the best, Ashok
From: Jorgen Thelin
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:47
PM
To: ;
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue
i014
So are you really suggesting we should change the name
of the specification every time we make any "significant" change to the spec
document(s)?
Isn't that what spec versioning and XML Namespaces are
for?
Otherwise, we might end up with something with
EJB v1.0, EJC v1.0 and EJD v1.0 rather that EJB v1.0, EJB v2.0 and
EJB v3.0, to use a different illustration.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ashok Malhotra
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:37
PM
To: Jorgen Thelin;
Subject: RE: [ws-rx]
[WS-RX] Issue i014
It's early in the life of the WG so it's hard to
tell,
but a number of issues have been raised that may
significantly
impact functionality -- e.g. the semantics of
AtMostOnce.
All the best, Ashok
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jorgen Thelin
[mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:57
AM
> To: ;
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue
i014
>
> Could you itemize the "significant differences"
you envisage?
>
> Did the input documents to the WS-CAF TC undergo
any similar
> "significant differences" compared to the current
versions
> published by that TC?
>
> I am just trying to understand Oracle's thoughts
and
> principles on this topic.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ashok Malhotra
[mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:48
AM
> To: Jorgen Thelin;
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue
i014
>
> My conjecture is that the specification produced
by the WS-RX
> WG will have significant differences from the
earlier WS-RM
> specifiaction.
> A new name will prevent
confusion.
>
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jorgen Thelin
[mailto:]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:26
AM
> > To: ;
> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue
i014
> >
> > At least 7 companies are already shipping
products implementing the
> > submitted WS-ReliableMessaging specs, so the
current name for this
> > spec is already well established in
customers minds and the market
> > place at large.
> >
> > According to MSN Search, there are already
10x more
> occurrences of the
> > term WS-RM than for WS-RX. Google produces
similar results (modulo
> > confusion with various similarly named radio
stations around the
> > world).
> > These figures illustrate how established the
current name
> already is
> > in the industry, and how much of an uphill
push it would be
> to switch
> > to a new name.
> >
> > Regarding "possible confusion with [the name
of] other documents in
> > the same space", the name "Reliable
Messaging"
> > is already just as different from
"Reliability" as
> "Reliable Exchange"
> > is. This is like saying "oranges are better
than apples
> when compared
> > to bananas"! Why make a gratuitous change to
something that clearly
> > isn't broken?
> >
> > As a comparison, are there any of the specs
being produced by the
> > WS-CAF TC that will be named "WS-CAF". Will
Oracle be
> making a similar
> > proposal there too?
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ashok Malhotra
[mailto:]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:51
AM
> > To:
> > Subject: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue
i014
> >
> > The Oracle folks would like to express our
preference on issue i014.
> >
> > We would like the documents to be named
WS-RX (Web Services
> Reliable
> > Exchange).
> > This aligns the names of the documents with
the name of the WG. It
> > also removes possible confusion with other
documents in the same
> > space.
> >
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
