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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
