[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [business-transaction] RE: [business-transaction-comment] Public Comment
The main list email archive seems to be staying fairly current. The comments list email archive is built only periodically. The *best* way to maintain visibility given the current tools is to use the main list and CC appropriate persons, as you are both now doing. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program which seems to be progressing towards the kernel of the debate ... -----Original Message----- From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 10:26 AM To: Haugen Robert; business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: Lublinsky,Boris S.; Newcomer, Eric 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... Yes, I agree. > > > 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, but unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and some players don't want to play with our football ;-) > > > >> * 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? Yes, it went to the comments list a few minutes after the initial response to yours. The OASIS lists are as reliable as ever because when I checked a while ago there hadn't been any update to them for days! Mark. ---- Mark Little, Chief Architect, Transactions, Arjuna Technologies Ltd. www.arjuna.com To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/business-transaction/members/le ave_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]