Re: [regrep] Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Matt,

A classic - "I'll code it - you go find out what the customers want"
argument. ; -)

Anyway - it's all moot - since we clearly have found much better ways of
doing this in the meantime - that customers are signing up to use - so -
let's
press on.

I'm looking forward to 2005 - there is much exciting new
developments in progress, no need to hash over old ground too long,
and more importantly - I do not see a strong need to formally specify
a registry / ebMS interface - when the http-binding is clearly the
easy route - and if people want more - then tight binding between
specific implementations at those tools own API level is where they will
go for that in anycase.

Cheers, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew MacKenzie" <mattm@adobe.com>
To: "'David RR Webber'" <david@drrw.info>; "'Chiusano Joseph'"
<chiusano_joseph@bah.com>; "'Farrukh Najmi'" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>;
<regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:02 AM
Subject: RE: [regrep] Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding


> Actually, for quite some time we did support it.  All it would have taken
> was for someone to require it.  Did we promote it? No. I never endorsed it
> architecturally...but the customer is always right even when they are very
> wrong ...
>
> -Matt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 9:56 AM
> To: Matthew MacKenzie; 'Chiusano Joseph'; 'Farrukh Najmi';
> regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [regrep] Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding
>
> I guess this is the opposite of "build it and they will come" = "I didn't
> build it - and noone came".
>
> DW
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Matthew MacKenzie" <mattm@adobe.com>
> To: "'Chiusano Joseph'" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>; "'Farrukh Najmi'"
> <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>; <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 9:11 AM
> Subject: RE: [regrep] Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding
>
>
> > I don't know that it matters.  The two major implementations have not
> really
> > supported the ebMS binding, and there have not been many complaints that
I
> > can remember.
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 9:09 AM
> > To: Farrukh Najmi; regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [regrep] Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding
> >
> > Just one question, from more of a "perception" perspective: Does
> > removing the ebMS binding "break" anyone's perception (within or outside
> > of OASIS) of an integratable ebXML framework? Does it send a negative
> > message (no pun intended)? Or does it not matter whether it sends any
> > type of message at all?
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Joseph Chiusano
> > Booz Allen Hamilton
> > Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
> > > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 11:49 AM
> > > To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: [regrep] Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is a breath of fresh air. I am for once proposing
> > > reducing scope instead of increasing it for 3.0 specs :-)
> > >
> > > 1. Based on implementation experience I think we should drop
> > > the ebMS binding from the RS spec for the following reasons:
> > >
> > > -It is out of date and underspecified. In its current form of
> > > specificity and accuracy it is unimplementable.
> > >
> > > -It would take major work to align it with ebMS 3.0 and
> > > define template CPAs for registry and client
> > >
> > > 2. Based on implementation experience I think we should drop
> > > bindings for all registry protocol methods that require HTTP
> > > POST from ebRS for the following reasons:
> > >
> > > -Sending protocol messages over HTTP POST without SOAP is
> > > pointless since we need to duplicate functionality of the
> > > SOAP Header. This is very non-standard in other similar
> > > specifications.
> > >
> > > -SOAP Binding is already supporting any such protocol
> > > messages over HTTP POST
> > >
> > > -It is not good to have two similar but different ways of
> > > implementing the same protocol
> > >
> > > Note that one side effect of (2) is that we can now remove
> > > the SignatureList element from RegistryRequestType and
> > > RegistryResponseType since they were there to carry
> > > signatures when there was no SOAP envelope (totally
> > > non-standard practice).
> > >
> > > I have discussed this with Matt who is an expert on both
> > > issues and he supported my proposal.
> > >
> > > Does any one have any objections to above proposals (1) and (2)?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Farrukh
> > >
> > >
> > > 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/regrep/members/le
> > > ave_workgroup.php.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > 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/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.
> > php.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.
> php.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>