OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-caf message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [ws-caf] WS-Resource Framework

I have the general impression of the OGSA specs as the equivalence of CORBA.
On the topic of the WS-Resource Framework in particular, I've looked through the specs and I think WS-Context could have been used, and it's unfortunate it wasn't.  I suppose the Resource Framework effort grew out of the Grid work however so it has a completely independent origin.
I also agree that I can't see a practical difference between context management in transactions and the context management defined for the Resource Framework.
It would be nice to try to converge these things at some point and in some organization - is that OASIS?
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:41 AM
To: Savas Parastatidis; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] WS-Resource Framework

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:36 AM
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] WS-Resource Framework

The specs and presentations can be found at:




BTW... they are trying hard to persuade people here at GlobusWORLD that the use of WS-Addressing to identify a "stateful resource" (a resource whose state can be represented as an XML document) is not the same as the use of context in the case of WS-AtomicTransaction. Personally, I can't see the difference. They are both ways to do message correlation and achieve stateful interactions. The difference I see is that WS-Resource is a way to reason about distributed objects.

I agree. It's the old "you say tomatoes and I say tomatoes" thing. If it allows the unambiguous representation of state within a specific arena (don't want to use the word context here to avoid confusion), then it's contextualised. I haven't read the specs. yet, but I assume that it's possible for the same end-point to multiplex across many different states by different WS-Addressing instances?


Now, whether people are going to start building loosely-coupled, large-scale applications around the concept of a stateful resource with a coupled identity (WS-Address + local identifier) and a coupled interface (the interface of the Web Service identified by the first part of the WS-Address) that will have to be decided. Personally, I think it still looks like distributed objects but the IBM folks over here assure me that they are not doing objects and are truly service-oriented. People here may disagree with me. I guess only time will tell whether this approach has any benefits.

As usual it depends who you talk to in IBM and elsewhere. Fairly obviously there are people in BEA and MSFT who disagree. There are also people in IBM who think it's distributed objects too.


In their presentations, they are making the following distinctions (I am not going to comment for now... I'll leave this up to you):

- "A truly stateless service" (the set of operations that identify a Web service)

- "A conversational service"

- "A stateless service that acts upon stateful resources"


Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.



Best regards,

Savas Parastatidis
http://savas.parastatidis.name (now blogging)

From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jeanjadu@Attachmate.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:07 AM
To: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-caf] WS-Resource Framework


Yet another context management specification from IBM et al: http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=61977



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]