In my opinion the mentioned WS specs focuses some of the Asynchrnous
features that are important to them
to do their core activities.
WSRM - focuses on message guarantee, ordering and duplicate elimination etc.
CAF - focuses on correlating and coordinating the work between the
participant services
WSBPEL - gives slots to hook with WS-COORDINATION for correlation
ASYNC - focuses on continuous response, control and monitoring.
Personally I don't see ASYNC competing here with any spec. Unfortunately
there is less coordination and no well defined
stack among various WS specs.
I agree with Michael that we are such a small group and probably we should
come up clearly
how the ASYNC is complement to other specs.
Regards
Mayilraj
At 03:31 PM 11/11/2003 -0500, Sodhi, Gavenraj S wrote:
>Michael,
>
>ASAP, in the method we are specifying is very complementary to SPML
>(Service Provisioning Markup Language) and in turn when we are using
>other technologies like SAML and WS-S. ASAP would enable me to have
>continuous response from web services requests (for Provisioning via
>SPML) of objects across domains involved in complex requests that
>involve approvals, workflow, and may have latency.
>
>I may not be interested to the other facets of overbundling of
>technologies as other initiatives may offer. ASAP is quite valuable.
>
>My $0.02
>
>Cheers,
>
>-Raj
>
>
>Gavenraj Sodhi, MBA
>Computer Associates
>Product Manager, eTrust
>Mobile: +1 949 350 8808
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Shenfield [mailto:]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 12:26 PM
>To: Sodhi, Gavenraj S; Jeffrey Ricker
>Cc: ASAP
>Subject: RE: [asap] from the OMA TP meeting in London, UK
>
>Sodhi,
>As these three committees are dealing with "high level" specs they make
>certain assumptions on behavior and definitions of async web services.
>For example WSBPEL spec defines how to process correlation, deals with
>cases of multiple correlation, correlation violations, etc. Unless we
>review prior specs we are running a danger of overlap/conflict.
>The effort certainly depends on availability and time commitment of the
>group.
>Cheers,
>
>Mike
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sodhi, Gavenraj S [mailto:]
>Sent: November 11, 2003 3:06 PM
>To: Michael Shenfield; Jeffrey Ricker
>Cc: ASAP
>Subject: RE: [asap] from the OMA TP meeting in London, UK
>
>
>Can you elaborate on the work WSRM, CAF, and WSBPEL are doing that may
>send ASAP in a crash course with them? This would allow us to go
>through and discuss and debate the areas we may be complementary. For
>myself, I probably could not make the F2F in December because of
>personal obligations but it would provide me tools to take back to CA to
>better understand if we may be able to reuse efforts from other
>initiatives, if they are duplicative.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Raj
>
>Gavenraj Sodhi, MBA
>Computer Associates
>Product Manager, eTrust
>Mobile: +1 949 350 8808
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Shenfield [mailto:]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 11:48 AM
>To: Jeffrey Ricker
>Cc: ASAP
>Subject: [asap] from the OMA TP meeting in London, UK
>
>or rather from the pub at Hilton Metropole where the OMA (Open Mobile
>Alliance) TP is going on :)
>
>This week I am attending OMA TP meetings in UK and went for drinks and
>chat with MWS people from Microsoft and IBM. When discussing async web
>services I mentioned OASIS ASAP and asked why they ignore it. They
>replied that both companies are concerned that there are already 3 OASIS
>groups that refer to async services in the specs (WSRM, CAF, WSBPEL) and
>as their specs are close to completion they're afraid that ASAP will
>either reinvent the wheel or go in the opposite direction.
>
>I think it is a very good point and we should first carefully analyze
>all AWS related references in other OASIS specs before issuing working
>draft or defining scope, etc. Typically this is done through liaison
>reports or F2F meetings for review and discussion. Unless we go through
>this exercise, I don't think we can count on wide adoption of ASAP given
>the small size of the group and lack of participation from industry
>heavyweights. I propose to have a F2F meeting (2 days) on the second
>week of December and resolve the major issues. I can host the meeting in
>my Toronto office but would prefer iWay to host it in NYC so I'll have a
>chance to meet my former IBI/iWay peers :)
>Cheers,
>
>Mike
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
>the OASIS TC), go to
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/asap/members/leave_workgrou
>p.php.
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
>the OASIS TC), go to
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/asap/members/leave_workgrou
>p.php.
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
>the OASIS TC), go to
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/asap/members/leave_workgroup.php.
