[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [business-transaction] RE: [business-transaction-comment] Public Comment
> I agree that convergence is a good idea. > But in my book that doesn't necessarily imply a single protocol. I understand. If I paraphrase correctly, the gist of our argument is about how to achieve convergence: * a framework that accomodates multiple protocols with mappings between them, or * a standard set of messages that accommodate multiple implementations. Or, I suppose, some combination of both... > Although (and only history will tell) I think > from the feedback we've gotten from public and private supporters > gives us some glimmer of hope that WS-CAF will be able > to compete well with the IBSoft approach. That's interesting from a software vendor perspective, but I think business users would prefer competition on implementations of one standard protocol. And as you write, history will tell. > >> * I know each of those initiatives does more than loosely-coupled >> business transactions. > >> ** If need be, I'll figure out how to write the details behind that >> statement without naming names. > > One of your * should be a **. Presumably the second one? Yes, thanks. Should have been: > When I see a series of initiatives trying to fill the same business > transaction space (RosettaNet, ebXML BPSS, UNCEFACT BCF, BTP, WS-T, > WS-TXM*), and they can all be united into one protocol, and the > confusion of business transaction protocols is impeding commercial > adoption**, I think it's time for convergence. P.S. you mentioned a reply to Peter, but I haven't seen it come thru. Did you send it to the public list?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]