Re: [wsrp] 1.1 vs. 2.0 planning

[Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>]

Godd suggestion!  I will add it to my list. Are there other enhancements 
out there that expand the breadth of the specification without changing 
the API?
     -Mike-

Thomas Schaeck wrote:

>I think the distinction Mike proposes is right on - I also think we should
>not have interface changes from 1.0 to 1.1 unless they really are required
>to fix something.
>
>One thing I think we can consider for 1.1 in addition to the items listed
>below are markup fragment rules for additional markups, e.g. for phones
>(WML and VoiceXML), since this would not impact the WSRP interfaces, but
>only define additional options for markups.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Thomas
>
>
>
>|---------+----------------------------->
>|         |           Michael Freedman  |
>|         |           <Michael.Freedman@|
>|         |           oracle.com>       |
>|         |                             |
>|         |           04/16/2003 07:59  |
>|         |           PM                |
>|         |                             |
>|---------+----------------------------->
>  >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>  |                                                                                                                              |
>  |       To:       WSRP <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>                                                                             |
>  |       cc:                                                                                                                    |
>  |       Subject:  [wsrp] 1.1 vs. 2.0 planning                                                                                  |
>  |                                                                                                                              |
>  >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
>I thought it might be useful to begin discussing whether/how to
>differentiate what goes into 1.1 vs. 2.0 ahead of our May to F2F.  To get
>the discussion started I will reiterate my view which I outlined during our
>January F2F:
>      Version 1.1 should contain only those enhancements that don't add or
>alter the 1.0 API.  The exception to this rule would be an
>addition/alteration to fix a bug in the 1.0 specification.  The version
>following 1.1 [Currently called 2.0] becomes the first update where we
>change/alter the API.
>
>At the moment this would mean the focus of 1.1 would not be to added/extend
>existing function.  Rather 1.1 would:
>      clarify the 1.0 specification where deemed necessary
>      define UDDI support [and any other registry we cared about]
>      define carrying markup over Soap with attachements/DIME.
>      clarify interoperability and conformance
>I think we should limit 1.1 by not altering the protocol/adding new
>function for the following reasons:
>      1.1 should follow 1.0 reasonably quickly [Oct-Dec?].  Upgrading
>      API/function so quickly after releasing 1.0 will likely confuse the
>      market and slow adoption.  I.e. 1.0 consumers and producers are
>      likely just coming to market during this time period.
>      Our next API/functional release should include changes/function based
>      on real world/customer feedback not just our own ideas/experience.
>      Our likely 1.1 schedule precludes giving consumer/producers enough
>      time to experience WSRP and communicate true priorities for change.
>      Interoperability/Conformance is grunt work compared to defining new
>      function.  If both are a focus of a release
>      interoperability/conformance is likely to suffer.
>     -Mike-
>
>
>
>  
>