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: AW: AW: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]


I agree with Stefan - on both accounts.

1. Positive formulations are better
2. the installed base of legacy systems is too big to ignore. Again, we are
talking about standards and very difficult to accommodate all, particularly
legacy systems which at the minimum do not even use XML-based
interfaces/connectors.

Srinivas

-----Original Message-----
From: Beck, Stefan [mailto:stefan.beck@sap.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 9:40 AM
To: 'Timothy N. Jones'; wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: AW: AW: AW: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]


Tim,

I still believe, that E922 is an important statement:
- from a marketing perspective: we should encourage companies to do steps
toward WSIA and therefore an explicit statement is helpful
- my company has lot of existing applications in our installed base and for
the acceptance of WSIA, E922 is an important requirement that is worth
mentioning

And by the way, I think positive formulations (enable) are preferable to
negative ones (must not preclude) when you intend to convince a somebody.
Thats my position. 

But the majority has to decide...

Stefan



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Timothy N. Jones [mailto:tim@crossweave.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Mai 2002 16:23
An: Beck, Stefan; wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]



To me "enable" means positive support for something, "not preclude" is
neutral, and "preclude" means negative support (i.e., trying to prevent
something).  I think the best slot for this one is in the middle.

Of course, WSIA should also not preclude interactive web services from
working on Wednesdays, or in the southern hemisphere, but we don't mention
these specifically.  To me the difference is that many people are concerned
about legacy apps fitting into the web services world, and so E922 is not
totally pointless (it may not be strictly "normative" but does have value
for the reader).  

On the other hand I'd be okay with it being removed from the official
requirements list altogether, since the default support for legacy apps,
Wednesdays, the southern hemisphere, and everything else should be "neutral"
unless it deserves special attention for some reason.

Tim

> That was my intention. I'm not expecting a chapter how to wrap legacy
> applications within the specification. As I understand the word "enable",
it
> means something like "allow" respectively "not to preclude". But I'm not a
> native speaker:-) 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Mai 2002 14:34
> An: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]
> Do we really expect the specification to do anything to enable this
> wrapping of legacy applications? I think the intent to to not preclude
> developers from interacting with any back end system they want to.
>  
>                       "Beck, Stefan"
>                       <stefan.beck@sap.        To:
> wsia@lists.oasis-open.org                               
>                       com>                     cc:
>                                                Subject:  AW:
> [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]                     
>                       05/08/2002 03:28
>                       AM
>  
>  
> Whats about:
> The specification MUST enable Producers to provide existing legacy
> applications and infrastructure as WSIA compliant Web Service.
> Stefan
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Timothy N. Jones [mailto:tim@crossweave.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 6. Mai 2002 20:00
> An: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
> Betreff: RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]
> Is there a reason this shouldn't be a "must", i.e.:
>   The specification MUST not preclude Producers from providing the
> capability to support legacy applications and infrastructure.
> As long as the protocol between Consumer and Producer is WSIA, it
shouldn't
> matter what else the producer is doing on the backend.
> Tim
> > Dan, I can see your perspective, but consider the consequences if we
> produce
> > 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.
> > Regards
> > Greg
> > -----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
> > cc:
> > Subject:    [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]
> >  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
> > specification.
> > Try:
> > 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>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>



----------------------------------------------------------------
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