I see where you are coming from. And I also remember that the early ebXML TRP(now MS) -- I believe it was 0.x release which should be consider as an initial conceptual rough sketch -- did adopted the SOAP. Alomst, if not all, all specs in the early stage are not so mature that includes all submissions to W3C as well. Even take a look at the evolution of Axis. The early stage of any artifact should not be criticized.
And that's true ebXML has own stuff all that you mentined. Shouldn't those considered as positive artifacts. They have finer refinements than the combination you mentioned. Also, WSDL is only a "Note" and UDDI did not even considered the WSDL adoption until the recent release. And those are mainly happened IBM/MS marrage. I don't think the UDDI is even came to the door at W3C. Also, if SOAP/WSDL/UDDI is a such perfect combination, why W3C is working on a new Working Group for Choreography even though we have many of those from different suggestions led by some vendors or marriage of some among them. To wit, the current work and the related artificats at W3C are not even sufficient Web services. All these things are just part of transition toward the better collaborative solution. In that transition, the combination of SOAP/ WSDL/UDDI should not be consider only way to stick around. For example, AFAIK, the asian community adopted ebXML more than the combination you mentioned and they are already in practice in the real world. Because ebXML is a formal standard in the international community. the combination you mentioned is not even US standard. Some of vendors think and behave that if they make an ".org" site with their "neo-" vendors, it becomes the standard. Silly! They are only creating a chaos from the negative viewpoint and the early sign of needs from the positive point of view. Why are all those things, including Web services, are going on and attracting the international community is the "Interoperability." I know if they all gathered together and prepared well at the early stage to create an unified interantional standard, it would more efficient and effective. But the level in the present world we are living is not just that mature. Pae > Back in 2000, ebXML was not based on SOAP. ebXML didn't adopt SOAP until > January 2001. And even though it has now adopted SOAP, the ebXML > infrastructure isn't compatible with SOAP/WSDL/UDDI. ebXML defines its own > extended infrastructure. It has its own messaging system (ebXML TRP -- > extended SOAP w/ Attachments). It has its own method of describing services > (BPSS and CPPA). It has its own registry (ebXML Registry). > > At the time Sun's reasoning was that SOAP was just a toy -- XML-based RPC -- > and e-business requires a more comprehensive messaging infrastructure. Also > (and I think this was the real thorn), Microsoft invented SOAP, so therefore > it must be bad. > > Consider this: > > - JAXM was launched in June 2000. Originally it was an > API for ebXML. Only later (once ebXML had adopted SOAP > as a basic framework) did they make it work with SOAP. > (But JAXM still doesn't support WSDL.) > > - JAX-RPC wasn't launched until February of 2001 > (after ebXML had adopted SOAP). > > - JAXR is based on the ebXML registry data model rather > than the UDDI data model. > > - Sun doesn't include JWSDL in the list of XML APIs on > www.jcp.org or in the JWSDP. (But then IBM lead the > JWSDL JSR, not Sun.) <kick, stamp, pout> > (I apologize -- I've became very disillusioned > watching Sun act like a spoiled child) > > But perhaps the tide has turned. > > Sun has started working with SOAPbuilders (they even hosted the last > meeting). > And now (thankfully) they've joined WS-I. > > Let's hope they stay engaged. > > Anne > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pae Choi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 8:51 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Document style web services > > > > > > Strange. ebXML MS is based on SOAP. Those two complement to each > > other. It's just a higher transport than SOAP compare to SOAP over > > HTTP, SMTP, or whatever. Why fight? > > > > > > Pae > > > > > > > > > > > <flame> > > > This is a political issue between Microsoft and Sun. Just because senior > > > management at these companies act like little boys in a school yard, it > > > doesn't mean that WS-I is just some Microsoft puppet organization. > > > > > > There are plenty of other serious Java players that have board seats at > > > WS-I. To wit: BEA, IBM, and Oracle. (also Fujitsu and HP) Microsoft only > > has > > > one seat on a board of 9 (soon to be 11). > > > > > > I think it was a serious mistake on the part of WS-I not to > > invite Sun to > > be > > > on the board. It certainly has had a significant impact on the group's > > > credibility. But I can understand the reluctance of some of the players > > (not > > > just Microsoft) to invite them to play. Sun was very slow to > > get involved > > > with Web services. For a very long time Sun was trying to undermine the > > > entire SOAP/WSDL/UDDI infrastructure in favor of ebXML. (I > > know. I was at > > > Sun at the time fighting in favor of SOAP.) Sun was being less than > > > constructive in the standards efforts. Would you invite someone to be on > > > your board if you had doubts about their good intentions? > > > > > > Almost all major web services contributions have been joint efforts by > > > Microsoft and IBM. Once the specs have been published, the two of them > > > invite others to join the work. I don't see a whole lot of > > Microsoft hoop > > > jumping going on. I see constructive joint effort. Sun is as welcome to > > join > > > the effort as anyone else. I was very pleased to see them join > > WS-I. They > > > certainly didn't win any points by standing in a corner and pouting > > because > > > they weren't picked first. > > > </flame> > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 11:59 AM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: RE: Document style web services > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may be old news, but its still true. Some of us are > > getting tired of > > > > being made to jump through hoops to accommodate Microsoft. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Anne Thomas > > > > > > > > Manes" To: > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: > > > > > > > > t> Subject: RE: > > > > Document style web services > > > > > > > > > > > > 11/21/2002 > > > > > > > > 05:01 PM > > > > > > > > Please respond > > > > > > > > to axis-user > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's old news. > > > > > > > > Sun is now a member of WS-I. WS-I has added two new seats to the > > > > board, and > > > > there will be a vote in March to elect the new board members. > > Let's hope > > > > that Sun gets elected. > > > > http://www.aspnews.com/news/article/0,,4191_1488041,00.html > > > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Dennis Sosnoski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 6:41 PM > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: Re: Document style web services > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >WS-I has just published its Basic Profile > > > > > >draft, which only supports document-style. Pretty much every > > > > > SOAP vendor is > > > > > >involved with WS-I, so it won't be long before all SOAP > > implementations > > > > > >generate document style by default. > > > > > > > > > > > I think WS-I has serious credibility problems, especially since it > > came > > > > > out that Microsoft's participation was conditional on Sun being > > excluded > > > > > from a major role in the organization. To quote from a Bill > > Gates memo > > > > > in reference to WS-I which was made public during the > > antitrust trial > > > > > (as reported in > > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t288-s2110205,00.html, > > > > > for one source): "I can live with this if we have the positioning > > > > > clearly in our favour. In particular, Sun not being one of the > > > > > movers/announcers/founding members." I'm sure that, as a participant > > in > > > > > WS-I, you're familiar with these issues, Anne. This credibility > > problem > > > > > is certainly going to influence how WS-I proposals are > > treated by the > > > > > industry. > > > > > > > > > > If Sun becomes a full coequal participant in the WS-I organization > > it'll > > > > > go a long way toward establishing WS-I as a bona fide forum for > > > > > supporting interoperability. Given Sun's ownership of Java > > and control > > > > > over Java standards it's hard to take an organization that excludes > > Sun > > > > > seriously on these issues. > > > > > > > > > > - Dennis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
