OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: No Subject


------_=_NextPart_001_01C33CEC.AE7EA670
Content-Type: text/html

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">


<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1141" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>
<DIV><SPAN class=090231218-27062003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT 
size=2>I feel that&nbsp;WSRP&nbsp;is&nbsp;ready&nbsp;for submission to 
OASIS.&nbsp; The arguments in favor of delay at this stage boil down to concern 
that after we've "locked down", we will&nbsp;uncover&nbsp;a showstopper interop 
issue&nbsp;with JSR 168.&nbsp; I don't buy it.&nbsp;&nbsp;From the beginning, 
both the JSR 168&nbsp;Expert Group and this TC have collaborated very 
closely,&nbsp;and the level of communication&nbsp;between the two groups has 
always been&nbsp;deep and timely.&nbsp; At a number of points in the evolution 
of both specifications, both groups have demonstrated the willingness to step 
back and consider the perspective and requirements of the other.&nbsp; And I 
believe both specifications are considerably stronger and richer for these 
efforts, and&nbsp;more to&nbsp;the point of this debate,&nbsp;already address 
the main interop points.&nbsp; Could we as&nbsp;TC/EG members have missed 
something in this process?&nbsp; Almost assuredly, the answer is yes.&nbsp; But 
I submit that&nbsp;we have identified&nbsp;and dealt with the main 
issues,&nbsp;and that anything we discover in the post-submission timeframe will 
be&nbsp;<SPAN class=090231218-27062003>sufficiently minor that we can defer to 
the next release of either spec.&nbsp; Regarding some of the other points in 
this debate:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=090231218-27062003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT 
size=2><SPAN 
class=090231218-27062003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=090231218-27062003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT 
size=2><SPAN class=090231218-27062003>Yes, JSR 168 slipped its schedule.&nbsp; 
But I do not agree that this in and of itself means "the world has shifted", to 
paraphrase one of the arguments in favor of delay.&nbsp; After all, given 
just&nbsp;the unresolved licensing issues (that are still unresolved to this 
day), did anyone in May seriously believe that the JSR schedule was <EM>not</EM> 
going to slip?&nbsp; Yet the vote was rather lopsidedly in favor of a 15 July 
target date.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=090231218-27062003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT 
size=2><SPAN 
class=090231218-27062003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=090231218-27062003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT 
size=2><SPAN class=090231218-27062003>The promotion of WSRP as a public standard 
I think is recognized by all as an important part of this TC's mission.&nbsp; 
Having gone to the point of a 1.0 Committee Specification draft is&nbsp;an 
important step in that process, but it's well short of the end goal.&nbsp; How 
does delaying submission for x months satisfy this goal?&nbsp;&nbsp;I could 
understand the need for delay if, at this stage, we&nbsp;had suddenly discovered 
the&nbsp;existence of JSR 168.&nbsp; That not being the case, we risk "freezing" 
the market for an unspecified period of time,&nbsp;despite near universal 
clamor&nbsp;that what this new Web Services paradigm really needs is 
standardization.&nbsp; &nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=090231218-27062003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT 
size=2><SPAN 
class=090231218-27062003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=090231218-27062003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT 
size=2><SPAN class=090231218-27062003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN 
class=090231218-27062003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN 
class=090231218-27062003>The interop testing we're doing now is a valuable 
effort that should&nbsp;be ongoing.&nbsp;&nbsp;And&nbsp;as a result of this, we 
have indeed identified some nuances that&nbsp;should be&nbsp;made part of the 
public record.&nbsp; In my opinion, though, these points more properly belong in 
supporting documentation such as a primer, as they reflect "real-world" 
deployment and usage.&nbsp; And there's no reason the primer can't continue to 
be rev'ed after 15 July.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=090231218-27062003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT 
size=2><SPAN 
class=090231218-27062003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=090231218-27062003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT 
size=2><SPAN 
class=090231218-27062003>Regards,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=090231218-27062003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT 
size=2><SPAN 
class=090231218-27062003>Alan</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C33CEC.AE7EA670--


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]