MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
wsia message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]
While I agree this requirement is basically meaningless, in this form it
does make an appropriate public staement. My only comment is that "not"
should also be capitalized as we want to pull in the definition of "MUST
NOT" from RFC 2119.
"Timothy N.
Jones" To: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
<tim@crossweave.c cc:
om> Subject: RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]
05/06/2002 01:59
PM
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
>