Re: [wsn] WS-Addressing submitted to W3C as input

[David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>]

+1

I believe there are two issues here: architecture and compatibility with 
existing implementations.

Architecturally, we should generally try to say as little as possible.  
As has been discussed, the architectural function of an endpoint is to 
provide a unique destination for messages.  This in itself is inherently 
future-proof.  Any spec that provides a unique destination for messages 
will work.

While compatibility is a legitimate issue (particularly for those with 
existing customers using older versions :-) I don't believe it should 
override architecture.  If there are not many more users of the adopted 
standard than there are of pre-standardized incarnations, we're doing 
something seriously wrong.  In any case, I would think that making WS-A 
the default dialect would handle many (but not all) compatibility issues.

Regardless of the final weight we put on compatibility, architecture 
should be driving the discussion at this point.  If we get the 
architecture right, but decide we ultimately want to publish a less 
abstract standard, that should not present a great problem.  On the 
other hand if we create a specialized document from the beginning and 
later discover a demand for greater abstraction, we'll have quite a bit 
of work to do at a bad time.


Anish Karmarkar wrote:

> Steve Graham wrote:
>
>>
>> Folks:
>> Please see: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/05/.
>> This is a submission request to the W3C by BEA, IBM, Microsoft, SAP 
>> and Sun to submit WS-Addressing to W3C as input to the 
>> standardization process.
>>
>> I would like to recommend that we consider using WS-Addressing as 
>> submitted to the W3C in our work in WS-RF and WS-N.  Note, our use of 
>> WSDL 1.1 (which was a submission to W3C, just like WS-Addressing is 
>> now) is a precedence for this sort of pre-requisite.
>>
>> I formally move that we use WS-Addressing as our only means of 
>> reference mechanism. In particular, I propose that we avoid 
>> abstracting the reference mechanism, such as BPEL has done, in light 
>> of this submission of WS-Addressing to W3C.  Note, this minimizes the 
>> perturbation to the currently specified message exchanges, and 
>> reduces migration impediments for implementations that are building 
>> to the 1.1 and 1.2 versions of our specifications.
>>
>
> I think this is a very good first step.
> But I don't see how this changes things for us in the short term. 
> There are now two submissions made to W3C [1] [2] that "address" the 
> same problem domain. There is also an effort to get a charter 
> [3][4][5][6][7] (pl. note that references [5], [6] and [7] are 
> accessible to W3C member only) for a W3C Working Group. Given that 
> there are two submissions and that there *may* be a W3C WG, it would 
> in fact make more sense to abstract the reference mechanism. This will 
> also future proof our specs to what ever comes out of a W3C WG (if it 
> happens).
>
> -Anish
> -- 
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/02/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/05/
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2004Jun/0000.html
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2004Aug/0003.html
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws/2004May/0001.html
> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws/2004May/0002.html
> [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws/2004May/0003.html
>
>
>