Comments on: WS-Eventing joins the WS-Thingy working group proposal http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/231 William Vambenepe's stage Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:33:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: William Vambenepe’s blog » Blog Archive » State modeling: party over, go home now. http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/231#comment-345 William Vambenepe’s blog » Blog Archive » State modeling: party over, go home now. Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:57:09 +0000 http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=231#comment-345 [...] “Fortunately, there seems to be industry support for an integration of the WS-Transfer and WS-RF approaches, based on a WS-Transfer substrate - the WS-ResourceTransfer specification.” See the last two paragraphs of this entry. [...] [...] “Fortunately, there seems to be industry support for an integration of the WS-Transfer and WS-RF approaches, based on a WS-Transfer substrate – the WS-ResourceTransfer specification.” See the last two paragraphs of this entry. [...]

]]> By: Paul Renaud http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/231#comment-344 Paul Renaud Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:19:14 +0000 http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=231#comment-344 Most of the W3C have not yet figured out that there SHOULD be a difference between protocols for managing the service interface and a management protocol for the service. Trying to roll everything into 1 protocol will doom the result into the same oblivion as the entire ISO protocol suite and for the exact same reasons. Stop the "kitchen sink" insanity and drive for clarity via separating these two very different concerns! The IBM proposal, perhaps for the wrong reasons, is actually a small step in the right direction. Meanwhile if WS-Man is to survive as a management protocol, it urgently needs a strict subset profile defined based on minimalist simplicity that rips out the fluff of optimizations and over specification. There is a lesson to be learned from the history and success of SNMP here. Most of the W3C have not yet figured out that there SHOULD be a difference between protocols for managing the service interface and a management protocol for the service.

Trying to roll everything into 1 protocol will doom the result into the same oblivion as the entire ISO protocol suite and for the exact same reasons.

Stop the “kitchen sink” insanity and drive for clarity via separating these two very different concerns! The IBM proposal, perhaps for the wrong reasons, is actually a small step in the right direction.

Meanwhile if WS-Man is to survive as a management protocol, it urgently needs a strict subset profile defined based on minimalist simplicity that rips out the fluff of optimizations and over specification.

There is a lesson to be learned from the history and success of SNMP here.

]]>