Hi Sanjiva, Well, yes, there are definitely WS-* architectures out there, but the industry still lacks an independently-defined, universally adopted one.
Even though IBM and Microsoft have collaborated on many specifications, they do not collaborate on every specification that each endorses. Therefore you get one variation of WS-* from Microsoft and another from IBM (the latter being well documented in your book, of course). Eric --- Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 06:55 -0800, Logan, Patrick D > wrote: > > "WSIL is dead .. it was effectively replaced by > WS-Metadata Exchange > > (WS-Mex) (I was a co-creator of WSIL and co-author > of WS-Mex.) WS-Mex is > > supported by IBM, Microsoft, BEA, SAP, CA, > WebMethods, Sun (as > > co-authors) and others." > > > > How does one determine which products from these > vendors (or others) > > support this standard? I have not looked for > support for this in > > specifically, but my experience is that reading > material does not make > > this obvious, and even talking to someone is > hit-and-miss. > > > > "I suggest you stick to using WS-Mex..." > > > > If I knew what it meant to stick to WS-Mex I would > consider that. 8^) > > > > Lost in translation, I'm... > > -Patrick > > One of the biggest problems in the WS-* world is > that there are too many > WS-<FOO> specs and its not clear what is important > and what's not. While > some say there's no architecture behind the WS-* > platform, at least in > the efforts that IBM and MSFT lead, there is a very > well defined > architecture. It seems that for the most part people > agree on the blocks > that constitute that architecture, but what people > don't agree on is the > specific solution (or WS-<FOO> spec) that is used to > color that block. > > In the stuff that IBM and MSFT lead, SOAP and > WS-Addressing are the core > of that architecture at the wire level and WS-Policy > for the most part > and WSDL to a lesser extent are the core of that > architecture at the > metadata level. > > Unfortunately, at this point WS-Policy is still not > submitted to a > standards group. That invariably leads to tension > because, hell, who > would want to go and build a ton of software on a > spec they don't have > any influence over at this time right? > > OTOH, if you look at it objectively, IMO ;-), the > stack that IBM and > MSFT have developed is pretty complete, works, and > is *done* being > designed. Note that I didn't say that its done being > standardized. > Recall however that many of the really core specs of > the Internet were > not designed by committees (MIME, SMTP, HTTP) - > they're things that work > and which the world at large adopted because they > work. There is also > now reasonable implementation experience coming > along with MSFT's WCF > (Indigo) leading the way. > > The work we're doing in Apache in and around Apache > Axis2 also has all > the parts including SOAP, WS-Addressing, WS-Policy > and WSDL at the core > and various quality of service specs like > WS-Reliable Messaging, > WS-Security/Secure Conversation/Trust, WS-Atomic > Transactions etc. built > on top. I have no doubt MSFT's further ahead of us > but we're not far > behind and we will catch up and beat 'em; the power > of open source is > with us :-). Plus we're building everything in Java > and in C. Oh yes, > help is always welcome. > > So, if you want to decide on which spec is "real" > and which is "dead" > today, then unfortunately you have to make a > judgement call and pick the > winners based on your own intuition of which things > will make it. > > My judgement is clearly biased towards the IBM and > MSFT stack because I > was involved with defining most of it. > > <PLUG>If you want to see my choices and the > rationale for it you can > pick up a copy of the book that I wrote with the > other 4 people who lead > the work from IBM's side.</PLUG> > > I know not everyone agrees with the various WS-<FOO> > specs that comprise > that stack and also do not hallucinate that every > single WS-<FOO> spec > in there is the best possible solution for that > component of the > architecture or that there weren't mistakes made > along the way (DIME, > anyone?). However, the pieces *do* work together and > they are being > implemented by MSFT very actively and by IBM at a > slightly slower pace > (they have more middleware to move along vs. MSFT > which is doing it all > anew for the most part) and by several others. There > are many open > source implementations of many of the core pieces > but AFAIK the work > around Apache Axis2 is the only one which is focused > on building the > entire stack by design. > > Time will, of course, shake out the "winners." > Unfortunately during that > phase customers will lose because not everyone will > pick the winners > exactly right. I've put my money where my mouth is; > I left IBM to start > WSO2 because I believe in the stuff and have risked > my future (and my > savings) on making it work. > > Sanjiva. > -- > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; > http://www.wso2.com/ > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; cell: +94 77 787 6880; fax: > +1 509 691 2000 > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
