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

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

David Hull wrote:

> +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.
> 

Well said. Could not agree more that we need to have the architecture be 
the driving factor.

> 
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>