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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsia message

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

Subject: RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]

Greg, Web Services as a technology is an enabler for integrating legacy
applications and such enablement will need the support of a web services
aware sw infrastructure.

However, given our WSIA efforts, as long as we assume support for WSDL
described services, WSIA will be able to provide a interactive facade
around existing Web Services. We need to be cautious of scope creep here.
In our definition of Consumer and Producer we assume a basic WSDL Web
Service. It is the implementation of that core WSDL service that will
address integration with legacy applications. Our WSIA effort is to enable
the extending of those core application services into the UI space by
describing an interactive language.

I think this all comes down to the question per application...at what point
do we need an interactive description? For example a legacy application may
be extended to the web thru an intermediary in which case WSDL will be used
to integrate the intermediary with the legacy app and WSIA will be used
between the intermediary(now the producer) and its respective consumer (ie:
browser, client app, whatever).

Does anyone know where this requirement came from? maybe that will help use
determine importance.

Dan Gisolfi

Greg Giles <ggiles@cisco.com> on 05/06/2002 01:23:03 PM

To:    wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:    RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]

Dan, I can see your perspective, but consider the consequences if we
a specification that prevents us from integrating with legacy applications.
Although we are in the domain of web services, the world will not become
fully WSIA aware for several years, and many of the implementations will be
producers exposing existing applications.
Without the ability to integrate the adoption rate will be low, which will
lead us down the path to obscurity.

I support Eilon's reworded statement, though I'm not sure that
'infrastructure' adds anything to the requirement.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Gisolfi [mailto:gisolfi@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 4:32 AM
To: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]

As we are dealing with the domain of Web Services, an assumption should be
made that the spec should pertain to any Web Service. Therefore, I see no
need for the spec to specifically call out legacy applications and
infrastructure. The spec will pertain to any software component that can be
described using a Web Services facade.

Therefore I do not see a need for this requirement. I motion for deletion.

Dan Gisolfi

To:    wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:    [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]


Producers SHOULD provide the capability to  support legacy applications and
infrastructure. Debate: GG, ER, DG, SB,  TJ.

This seems  to be a requirement from a tool and not necessarily from the


The  specification should not preclude Producers from providing the
capability to  support legacy applications and  infrastructure.

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC