RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014

["Abbie Barbir" <abbieb@nortel.com>]

+1

Abbie


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Bjärlestam (HF/EAB) 
> [mailto:andreas.bjarlestam@ericsson.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:41 AM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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 WS-TransactionManagement (WS-TXM) and has now been replaced by 3 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)
> 
> 
>