[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: AW: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]
Sean, Let me clarify. a) my point about "articulating the need" pertains to - why did this requirement show up on the list? who was the original source? What was the original scenario? Who made the inital motion? We have all espressed our opinions but I was trying (not well stated as you pointed out) to determine how to get to the root issue (prior WSIA work) that triggered the requirement. b) As for my position, I am operating under a premise that any WSIA service will be able to extend any WSDL compliant Web Service. With this premise in mind, I do not see a need to call out or correlate the linkage between WSIA applications and legacy applications. Since, WSIA applications can consist of an aggregation of any number of software services (including legacy components). Maybe a key hang-up on my end is the definition of a legacy application. Although such an application may have a tighly coupled presentation/interactive layer today, in the WSIA world I see that legacy application to be decomposed into business and data services that can be augmented by WSIA applications and the legacy app developer may leave the presentation layer undefined --- alla Enterprise Services If I am the only one against the inclusion of the requirement for the sake of productivity I will yeild. Does anyone else beleive that this requirement shoul not be included? Dan Gisolfi Sean Fitts <sean@crossweave.com> on 05/09/2002 11:44:12 AM To: Dan Gisolfi/Somers/IBM@IBMUS, wsia@lists.oasis-open.org cc: Subject: Re: AW: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922] Dan, I have to respectfully disagree with the statement that no one has articulated the reason for this requirement. The reason, as articulated by Stefan and Greg (among others), is that given that most WSIA implementations will likely be based on existing applications and given the importance of making sure that WSIA will be widely adopted, it is important to make a specific statement that the WSIA group intends to make this possible. This may have little technical significance, but I think it is very important as a statement of intent. There have been too many standards efforts which have ignored the current market realities and I don't any of us want WSIA to join that list. Now, you may disagree with this reason, but it has been articulated. Let's debate the reasons why you disagree. Personally, I don't think this goes far enough and I would like to see us outline specific scenarios that show a company taking its existing application assets and leveraging them as WSIA services. If this isn't possible (and fairly easy), then it will hard for WSIA to be widely deployed. That said, I support the proposal to use the phrase "MUST NOT preclude" (in place of MUST enable) as a middle ground. Sean At 07:34 AM 5/9/2002 -0400, Dan Gisolfi wrote: >So far (no wherei sthi sdebate) has someone articulated the reason for >this requirement. Where did it come from? My position is that we drop it. >Web Services technologies (namely SOAP and WSDL) will address integration >of legacy applications. WSIA will adress the description of how those >legacy (enterprise) services will be interated with.. > >Dan Gisolfi > > >Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS on 05/08/2002 08:33:45 AM > >To: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org >cc: >Subject: 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>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC