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:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:37
PM
To: Jorgen Thelin; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
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:jthelin@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:57
AM
> To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com;
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:48
AM
> To: Jorgen Thelin;
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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:jthelin@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:26
AM
> > To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com;
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > 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:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:51
AM
> > To:
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>