[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding
I guess this is the opposite of "build it and they will come" = "I didn't build it - and noone came". DW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew MacKenzie" <mattm@adobe.com> To: "'Chiusano Joseph'" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>; "'Farrukh Najmi'" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>; <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 9:11 AM Subject: RE: [regrep] Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding > I don't know that it matters. The two major implementations have not really > supported the ebMS binding, and there have not been many complaints that I > can remember. > > -Matt > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 9:09 AM > To: Farrukh Najmi; regrep@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [regrep] Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding > > Just one question, from more of a "perception" perspective: Does > removing the ebMS binding "break" anyone's perception (within or outside > of OASIS) of an integratable ebXML framework? Does it send a negative > message (no pun intended)? Or does it not matter whether it sends any > type of message at all? > > Kind Regards, > Joseph Chiusano > Booz Allen Hamilton > Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] > > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 11:49 AM > > To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: [regrep] Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding > > > > > > Here is a breath of fresh air. I am for once proposing > > reducing scope instead of increasing it for 3.0 specs :-) > > > > 1. Based on implementation experience I think we should drop > > the ebMS binding from the RS spec for the following reasons: > > > > -It is out of date and underspecified. In its current form of > > specificity and accuracy it is unimplementable. > > > > -It would take major work to align it with ebMS 3.0 and > > define template CPAs for registry and client > > > > 2. Based on implementation experience I think we should drop > > bindings for all registry protocol methods that require HTTP > > POST from ebRS for the following reasons: > > > > -Sending protocol messages over HTTP POST without SOAP is > > pointless since we need to duplicate functionality of the > > SOAP Header. This is very non-standard in other similar > > specifications. > > > > -SOAP Binding is already supporting any such protocol > > messages over HTTP POST > > > > -It is not good to have two similar but different ways of > > implementing the same protocol > > > > Note that one side effect of (2) is that we can now remove > > the SignatureList element from RegistryRequestType and > > RegistryResponseType since they were there to carry > > signatures when there was no SOAP envelope (totally > > non-standard practice). > > > > I have discussed this with Matt who is an expert on both > > issues and he supported my proposal. > > > > Does any one have any objections to above proposals (1) and (2)? > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Farrukh > > > > > > 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/regrep/members/le > > ave_workgroup.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/regrep/members/leave_workgroup. > 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/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]