MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
wsia message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: AW: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]
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
-----Urspr�ngliche 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
>