OASIS Web Services Interactive Applications TC

 View Only

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

  • 1.  Re: AW: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]

    Posted 05-09-2002 12:10
     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]


    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
    >
    >
    >-----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
    > >