[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
I think changing the name of the spec will only add confusion. The industry does not need yet another WS-something to keep track of. The only argument I have seen in this thread is that the spec produced by the WS-RX WG might have significant differences from the submission. There are many examples of specs that have gone through significant changes without changing name (EJB for example) and that has not led to confusion. Putting a version number like 2.0 is the best approach in my view. .Andreas -----Original Message----- From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] Sent: den 29 juli 2005 10:10 To: Greg Pavlik Cc: Green, Alastair J.; Jorgen Thelin; ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014 I don't have a strong opinion about renaming (because I haven't really had time to give it much thought), but it is worth pointing out that the names of the specifications within WS-CAF have undergone changes since the TC began. For instance, the transaction specification was originally WS-TransactionManagement (WS-TXM) and has now been replaced by 3 individual specifications, containing the different models that were once within the singular WS-TXM. So, for what it's worth, there is precedent. Mark. Greg Pavlik wrote: > There is no specification named WS-CAF. That is the umbrella TLA for > the TC's trichotomous effort. > > The point of comparison is interesting: CAF was developed in a > recognized standards body and had no preceding life in alternative > public forums. The specs are very, very different from the original > submissions. > > Greg > >> >> >>> -----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 >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Mark Little Chief Architect Arjuna Technologies Ltd (www.arjuna.com)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]