[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
Chris, Agree fully with your remarks. abbie > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:03 PM > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014 > > > Alistair writes: > > > Why isn?t the TC called WS-RM? Because you wanted to pull in greater > support, critically Oracle. > > The TC isn't named WS-RM because OASIS TC process guidelines > *require* > that each TC be uniquely named: > > The Charter of the TC, which includes only the following items: > a. The name of the TC, such name not to have been > previously used for > an OASIS TC and not to include any trademarks or service > marks not owned > by OASIS. The proposed TC name is subject to TC Administrator > approval and > may not include any misleading or inappropriate names. The > proposed name > must specify any acronyms or abbreviations of the name that > shall be used > to refer to the TC. > > WSRM as a TC name was already taken (and if you think that > the choice of > that acronym was not intentional, I want some of > what you're smoking). > > > Overall, I think both vendors and end-users want one spec, > not two, and > this is the kind of > > pragmatic result that you should welcome. > > I agree that what *everyone* wants is one spec, not two, or > three or five. > However, what I hear from customers all the time is that they > can't keep track of all the WS-* specs. The feature that > people want is > reliable messaging. I have never once heard someone ask me > for "reliable exchange". We only chose that name because we > HAD to choose > a name that was a) different than every other TC name > used and b) had some relationship to the nature of the > spec(s) that would > be produced. > > I would strongly urge that we NOT change the name of the > specifications so > as to not increase the level of confusion in the marketplace. > > Frankly, I think we're spending entirely too much time on > this non-issue. > Changing the name of the spec will not improve its technical > merits. A name change is not focused on improving > interoperability or the > clarity of the current prose in the spec. > > Cheers, > > Christopher Ferris > STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com > blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html > phone: +1 508 377 9295 > > "Green, Alastair J." <Alastair.Green@choreology.com> wrote on > 07/28/2005 > 06:45:31 PM: > > > Jorgen (a much respected colleague) ? get over it! > > > > Why isn?t the TC called WS-RM? Because you wanted to pull > in greater > support, critically Oracle. > > > > It?s not your private property any more. That?s what > happens when it > escapes into the wild. The > > spec will change according to different rules and with different > balances of power. It?s a good > > precedent for your workshop specs, and you should let it evolve ? I > think you want the standing > > that comes from getting Oracle to recognize reality and > stop trying to > create the alternate stack. > > Multiple inputs, one output. > > > > Same spec++, different name ? that?s a good deal for > Microsoft. Forward > to WS-TX (instead of the > > unwritten WS-Tx), and then you won?t have to worry about WS-CAF. > > > > Overall, I think both vendors and end-users want one spec, > not two, and > this is the kind of > > pragmatic result that you should welcome. There will be > bigger issues > where you guys are going to > > have to accept amendment and change to something that may > seem to you be > ?a done deal? because > > you?ve hashed it over in the world of the workshops -- so this is > perhaps a useful cultural experience. > > > > It?s not EJB, because it?s still in process, never had the > standing that > it will have emerging > > from an open standards body. Cf, BPEL à WS-BPEL. > > > > It?s perfectly reasonable to go for a spec name that > conforms with the > TC name. And it?s not the > > end of the world either way. > > > > Of all the companies to worry about the cost of changing > some marketing > literature? J > > > > Alastair > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jorgen Thelin [mailto:jthelin@microsoft.com] > > Sent: 28 July 2005 22:47 > > To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014 > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]