[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] 1.1 vs. 2.0 planning
Godd suggestion! I will add it to my list. Are there other enhancements out there that expand the breadth of the specification without changing the API? -Mike- Thomas Schaeck wrote: >I think the distinction Mike proposes is right on - I also think we should >not have interface changes from 1.0 to 1.1 unless they really are required >to fix something. > >One thing I think we can consider for 1.1 in addition to the items listed >below are markup fragment rules for additional markups, e.g. for phones >(WML and VoiceXML), since this would not impact the WSRP interfaces, but >only define additional options for markups. > >Best regards, > >Thomas > > > >|---------+-----------------------------> >| | Michael Freedman | >| | <Michael.Freedman@| >| | oracle.com> | >| | | >| | 04/16/2003 07:59 | >| | PM | >| | | >|---------+-----------------------------> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > | | > | To: WSRP <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org> | > | cc: | > | Subject: [wsrp] 1.1 vs. 2.0 planning | > | | > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > > > >I thought it might be useful to begin discussing whether/how to >differentiate what goes into 1.1 vs. 2.0 ahead of our May to F2F. To get >the discussion started I will reiterate my view which I outlined during our >January F2F: > Version 1.1 should contain only those enhancements that don't add or >alter the 1.0 API. The exception to this rule would be an >addition/alteration to fix a bug in the 1.0 specification. The version >following 1.1 [Currently called 2.0] becomes the first update where we >change/alter the API. > >At the moment this would mean the focus of 1.1 would not be to added/extend >existing function. Rather 1.1 would: > clarify the 1.0 specification where deemed necessary > define UDDI support [and any other registry we cared about] > define carrying markup over Soap with attachements/DIME. > clarify interoperability and conformance >I think we should limit 1.1 by not altering the protocol/adding new >function for the following reasons: > 1.1 should follow 1.0 reasonably quickly [Oct-Dec?]. Upgrading > API/function so quickly after releasing 1.0 will likely confuse the > market and slow adoption. I.e. 1.0 consumers and producers are > likely just coming to market during this time period. > Our next API/functional release should include changes/function based > on real world/customer feedback not just our own ideas/experience. > Our likely 1.1 schedule precludes giving consumer/producers enough > time to experience WSRP and communicate true priorities for change. > Interoperability/Conformance is grunt work compared to defining new > function. If both are a focus of a release > interoperability/conformance is likely to suffer. > -Mike- > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]