[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 WSRP is ready for submission to OASIS. The arguments in favor of delay at this stage boil down to concern that after we've "locked down", we will uncover a showstopper interop issue with JSR 168. I don't buy it. From the beginning, both the JSR 168 Expert Group and this TC have collaborated very closely, and the level of communication between the two groups has always been deep and timely. 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. And I believe both specifications are considerably stronger and richer for these efforts, and more to the point of this debate, already address the main interop points. Could we as TC/EG members have missed something in this process? Almost assuredly, the answer is yes. But I submit that we have identified and dealt with the main issues, and that anything we discover in the post-submission timeframe will be <SPAN class=090231218-27062003>sufficiently minor that we can defer to the next release of either spec. 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> </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. 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. After all, given just 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? 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> </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. Having gone to the point of a 1.0 Committee Specification draft is an important step in that process, but it's well short of the end goal. How does delaying submission for x months satisfy this goal? I could understand the need for delay if, at this stage, we had suddenly discovered the existence of JSR 168. That not being the case, we risk "freezing" the market for an unspecified period of time, despite near universal clamor that what this new Web Services paradigm really needs is standardization. </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> </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 be ongoing. And as a result of this, we have indeed identified some nuances that should be made part of the public record. In my opinion, though, these points more properly belong in supporting documentation such as a primer, as they reflect "real-world" deployment and usage. 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> </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]