[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [no subject]
I can understand your concerns, and it's important that these sorts of = things are voiced at any standards body. However, the feedback we've had = so far on WS-Context is all positive, so I think it's worth forging = ahead with this. Remember, as with any standard, you can always ignore = it if you don't think it's relevant to your business model or = application requirement. Mark. ---- Mark Little, Chief Architect, Transactions, Arjuna Technologies Ltd. =20 www.arjuna.com It's not the concept of standardising that I have issue with - I've = been heavily involved in open protocol standards for nearly 20 years - = it's just whether WS-Context has enough substance to be worth factoring = out as a layer to be built on by multiple users. All protocol standards define, by some means, a syntax and some = related semantics. But with WS-Context, although it is clear enough what = the syntax is, I remain unconvinced that there is any significant = semantics carried by the WS-Context syntax, that is not equally carried = by its immediate carrier, the SOAP header. I am perhaps running ahead here and assuming the progression of = ws-context will clean up the text and take out some things that are = already there, because closer study will show they are not generic and = ought to be part of the additional specification that is invariable = needed to define the syntax and semantics of the content of the context. =
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]