Fwd: Re: [emergency] BEA, Microsoft, and Tibco ReleaseWS-Eventing Specification

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Title: Fwd: Re: [emergency] BEA, Microsoft, and Tibco Release WS-

Excuse the non-sequitur post, but I wondered if anyone on this list might be interested in this development?

It's billed as a substrate allowing more than simple http request-response by using ws-addressing to decouple message from transport. I thought that was already possible, but maybe I missed something.

What do we really need that registries and http request-response doesn't do while very effectively restraining clutter and scalability issues in important channels (not to mention enforcing security considerations)?

Also, shouldn't "eventing" be reserved to processes that have definite, understood, triggered response processes? An interesting event sounds a bit like a distraction more than an important event with immediate important consequences.

Sounds like a boondoggle to me, but what do I know, eh?

Ciao,

Rex

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:42:21 -0800
To: "Aerts, John F." <jfaerts@lasd.org>, emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
Subject: Re: [emergency] BEA, Microsoft, and Tibco Release WS-Eventing Specification
Cc: "'emergency-if@lists.oasis-open.org'" <emergency-if@lists.oasis-open.org>
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

> Thanks, John,
>
> This is of more than a little interest.
> It troubles me. I don't understand what this is good for in and of
> itself. It doesn't "DO" anything but pass messages as far as
> I can see, and doesn't do anything else that isn't already possible. 
> Also it introduces yet more new "notation" that uses
> "?"., "*" and "+" for cardinality
> values. WSRP already has a registry-based WSDL mechanism for the
> processes described in this specification, not to mention a whole
> flock of mechanisms that were crafted in order to leave room for
> "true" eventing. Eventing requires (IMHO) "triggering"
> mechanisms with clear defined results quite beyond receipt of a simple
> message whether it is an event, notification or what? and regardless
> of whether or not any such "subscription" is involved beyond
> "registration."
>
> It also bothers me when I see a
> specification that so concerned with fault messages and failure
> scenarios.
>
> All of which adds up in my mind to an
> attempt to somehow "own" the term "eventing" and
> apply the concept of "subscription" to it.
>
> I think we can do a lot
> better.
>
> Ciao,
> Rex
>

At 6:16 AM -0800 1/12/04, Aerts, John F. wrote:

This may be of interest.


WS-Eventing describes how to construct an event-oriented message
exchange pattern using WS-Addressing concepts, allowing Web services
to act as event sources for subscribers. It defines the operations
required to manage subscriptions to event sources, as well as how the
actual event messages are constructed....

Http://www.webservices.org/index.php/article/view/1300/BEA

John Aerts, Lieutenant

CCHRS Program Manager

Records & Identification Bureau
12440 E. Imperial Highway, Suite 400W
Norwalk, California 90650

Office:       562 465 7876
Mobile:     562 706 3964
Pager:      800 273 8474
FAX :       323 415 2666


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/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.

>
>
> -- 
>  
> Rex Brooks
> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
> W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
> Email: rexb@starbourne.com
> Tel:
> 510-849-2309
> Fax: By
> Request

-- 

Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com

Tel: 510-849-2309

Fax: By Request