Re: [regrep] UDDI <> ebXML Reg use case

[Farrukh Najmi <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>]

Max,

We had a detailed thread (initiated by you) on this very proposal 
recently. I recall acknowledging the validity of your use case and 
making a detailed argument on why the use case should be met by 
product/implementation based solutions and not specifications. I will 
refer you to the message on Feb. 12 (less than two weeks ago):

    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200302/msg00032.html

Your last word on this thread was at:

    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200302/msg00050.html

Have you any new information to share that changes the balance of the 
argument?

Lastly, regarding the picture you sent with the recent message, I take 
issue with the distinction of Web Service user and ebXML  user. IMO, 
ebXML is just as much web services as (SOAP, UDDI and WSDL). I am not 
fond of any standards apartheid and FUD that misleads people into 
believing that ebXML is somehow not web services (I am not suggesting 
that you originated this misconception. You may just be a victim of it ;-) )

To conclude:

ebXML is not an alternative to web services.
ebXML is advanced "Business web services.


-- 
Respectfully,
Farrukh



Max Voskob wrote:

> Hi there! Me again :)
>  
> I'm working with web services (using C++, C#, .NET, Perl, etc), but 
> my client decided to use ebXML registry due to its superiority.
> However, I'd like to use my tools for webservice development. I'm 
> missing out :((( My performance dropped coz all my tools expect UDDI 
> !!! I have to do an awful lot of manual work now. I'm unhappy. I want 
> to use my UDDI client tools with the ebXML registry.
>  
> Does it sound like a real life situation?
> Here is a use case for your attention (see the attachment).
>  
> I'd like to ask the same question (feel free to ignore again): Would 
> the honorable TC be interested in formalising use of some UDDI 
> interfaces with ebXML Reg?
>  
> Cheers,
> Max
>  
>  
>  
>  
>