Jorgen (a much respected colleague) –
get over it!
Why isn’t the TC called WS-RM? Because
you wanted to pull in greater support, critically Oracle.
It’s not your private property any more.
That’s what happens when it escapes into the wild. The spec will change
according to different rules and with different balances of power. It’s a
good precedent for your workshop specs, and you should let it evolve – I think
you want the standing that comes from getting Oracle to recognize reality and
stop trying to create the alternate stack. Multiple inputs, one output.
Same spec++, different name – that’s
a good deal for Microsoft. Forward to WS-TX (instead of the unwritten WS-Tx),
and then you won’t have to worry about WS-CAF.
Overall, I think both vendors and
end-users want one spec, not two, and this is the kind of pragmatic result that
you should welcome. There will be bigger issues where you guys are going to have
to accept amendment and change to something that may seem to you be “a
done deal” because you’ve hashed it over in the world of the
workshops -- so this is perhaps a useful cultural experience.
It’s not EJB, because it’s
still in process, never had the standing that it will have emerging from an
open standards body. Cf, BPEL à WS-BPEL.
It’s perfectly reasonable to go for a
spec name that conforms with the TC name. And it’s not the end of the world
either way.
Of all the companies to worry about the cost
of changing some marketing literature… J
Alastair
-----Original
Message-----
From: Jorgen Thelin
[mailto:]
Sent: 28
July 2005 22:47
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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
