This WS-I consortium entrusts itself with
"defining" interoperability. The founders are permanent board
members and board minutes are never public (even to the contributing members).
Later some of the same founding companies that sit on the
"interoperability" board author a set of standards (the WS-X series) and offer
them up to their local international standards body, OASIS. Some of the
proposals are unique or complimentary to existing work and some are
overlapping. I think it's safe to say that some of the aspects of the
proposals are causing fear, uncertainty, and doubt, in the industry (FUD) and
that the current situation would seem to be at odds with the goal of WS-I, the
interoperability consortium set up to alleviate confusion in the first place
(remember the noble cause).
I don't know much of the working of WS-I but I do know that whenever we've
approached them about transactions the response has been "interesting, but too
much other stuff to do at the moment". For something like transactions,
especially when you haven't got any spec. yourself, I'd suspect that waiting for
WS-I to be ready isn't on the cards.
Now OASIS is in the painful position
of having to take action and account for the interoperability consortium's
influence - a consortium made up of some of the biggest players in the
industry who are also involved with these standards organizations at some
level.
It's my belief that
the best way to deal with this situation is for the standards body to address
proposals in light of existing working groups and this is the job of the
standards body leadership. OASIS has been fairly silent up to now, I'm
sure, because they are examining their options carefully as we are about to
set some precedence (not unlike patent/RAND issues).
I don't think there's anything to be gained by having multiple
specifications on the same topic covered by different standards bodies. But then
that's a personal opinion.
I hope that the standards bodies find the
strength to drive the standards process as best meets the needs of their
entire constituency. In this case, that means examining each proposal in
depth and taking a clear, well communicated, course of action that eliminates
redundancy and confusion. If the standards body cannot accept new
proposals based on existing TC work, then the standards loose their
effectiveness in defining what is "standard in the first place". Once
clear set of standards is much more effective than many ambiguous and
overlapping standards. Situations like this easily cost the industry
millions of dollars in wasted effort.
WS-Transaction - This proposal is in essence a simplified non-normative
version of BTP (with exception of some
material).
Without going into too much detail, WS-T isn't
as complete or as polished as it should be. It's more a marketechture statement
than a specification like BTP.
If the redundant parts of the proposal
have capabilities that do not exist in the existing standards proposals then
the submitters should join the affected WG and modify the existing standard
(that happens to already be in public review after a long processing cycle in
TC). In essence a new version can be hatched based on the merits of the
proposal.
Yes and no. One of the things that instigated WSCF (and HPs initial
submission to OASIS) was that a single transaction protocol may not suit
everyone and neither does a single coordination protocol. Rather than create a
bloated specification that has lots of caveats and optional features and is
horribly complex to read and implement, why not have micro-protocols that a
geared just for a single (say) domain? It's like the micro-kernel approach to
operating systems. So, if there are things in WS-T that are useful to some
businesses *unless* they are useful to all, I'd prefer to see a separate
transaction protocol. Maybe BTP should be the Business Transaction
Protocols?
WS-Coordination - This proposal is unique
and stands on its own as a way of setting up "distributed SOAP transaction
servers" - aka a VAN.
Agreed.
BPEL4WS - This proposal is redundant
but has the distinct benefit of merging XLANG and WSFL, two of the three major
business process languages (BPML is one other I can think of easily).
I'd be happy to get rid of three standards in exchange for two any day.
I think the implication here is
that if OASIS does not adopt the proposals future submissions will go to W3C
(or yet another new body)
I don't know about that. I don't know what the current agenda is, but I can
say that originally we definitely intended going to a standards body and taking
*all* that that implied, i.e., that what goes in may not be what comes out (just
look at BTP).
and we still don't have clarity. What
this assumption does not take into account is that W3C and OASIS *are*
fundamentally interested in interoperability and that they may not be willing
to compromise their integrity by "clouding the water" even
more.
Personally I think there's a lot of confusion in general about OASIS and
W3C!
A little marketing for OASIS/W3C/SOAP
Builder interoperability efforts might be in order.
Regards and let's
hope for the best.
Cheers,
Mark.
---------------------------------------------- Dr. Mark Little,
Distinguished Engineer, Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs Email: mark_little@hp.comPhone: +44 191
2606216 Fax : +44 191 2606250
Bill Flood Sybase
| Mark Little
<mark_little@hp.com>
08/10/2002 02:00 AM
| To:
Mark Potts <mark.potts@talkingblocks.com>, "Cho,
Pyounguk" <pyounguk.cho@iona.com>, Peter Furniss
<peter.furniss@choreology.com>, BT - spec
<bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org> cc:
Subject: Re: [bt-spec]
WS-transaction..
|
Mark, I agree that a teleconference is in order. Middle of next
week would be better for me (and either before 5pm our time or after 7pm
would be even better, given that I'll be juggling a baby at the same time
:-)
No revisionist history here: WSCF was always intended to support
BTP as just another extended transaction model. So, if my colleagues in IBM
continue in that light, it should be possible for us to co-exist. We will
definitely have to see what happens when this hits a standards body
though.
Mark.
---------------------------------------------- Dr.
Mark Little, Distinguished Engineer, Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna
Labs Email: mark_little@hp.com Phone: +44 191 2606216 Fax : +44
191 2606250
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Potts"
<mark.potts@talkingblocks.com> To: "Mark Little"
<mark_little@hp.com>; "Cho, Pyounguk" <pyounguk.cho@iona.com>;
"Peter Furniss" <peter.furniss@choreology.com>; "BT - spec"
<bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 7:56
PM Subject: RE: [bt-spec] WS-transaction..
Hey before we all get
fired up ( just like the ebXML folks did with us originally ) lets take a
step back and look at this rationally....
This is just my perspective,
and yes I did know this was coming somewhat, but there is little difference
between this spec and BTP - WS-Coordination is separated from the
transactions types (WS-Transaction ) such that WS-Coordination can
coordinate different transactions models, BTP simply declares the
transaction model being used ( atom or cohesion ) within the context. With
some changes ( minor ) on either side BTP can fit in easily to
WS-Coordination and therefore BPEL. Of course there are other differences
but on the whole anyone involved in BTP should recognise a lot in the
specs.
We (as BTP TC) should be looking to this as an opportunity for
"convergence" where we can have IBM, Microsoft, BEA, Oracle and some of us
smaller minows all back one standard. There is no definition of where this
work will end up as a standard (as yet) but again we should encourage
in whatever way we can, those involved to take this to OASIS where we can
help get WS- Coordination and WS-Transaction "fully baked" and leverage the
work completed in the BTP TC.
I suspect the TC needs to get together
on a call so at least we have a common statement and position on this we
can discuss with customers and our companies.
Regards
Mark.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Little
[mailto:mark_little@hp.com] > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 11:20
AM > To: Cho, Pyounguk; alex@ceponkus.org; Mark Potts; Peter Furniss; BT
- > spec > Subject: Re: [bt-spec]
WS-transaction.. > > > FYI this actually started out as the
Web Services > Coordination Framework > with HP, IBM and Iona but
due to some politics which I don't > even want to > understand,
the participant list changed. (A very long and > not so happy >
story!) > > Mark. > > ----- Original Message
----- > From: "Cho, Pyounguk" <pyounguk.cho@iona.com> > To:
<alex@ceponkus.org>; "Mark Potts" >
<mark.potts@talkingblocks.com>; "Peter > Furniss"
<peter.furniss@choreology.com>; "BT - spec" >
<bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org> > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002
6:08 PM > Subject: [bt-spec] WS-transaction.. > > >
Hello BTPers, > Please, check out the following link.
Finally, IBM and MS > together with > BEA have come up with
ws-transaction spec. >
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-949049.html > > Regards, >
Pyounguk > >
---------------------------------------------------------------- > To
subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager:
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > >
---------------------------------------------------------------- To
subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager:
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
|