OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: JSR-000093: JAXR - your opinions?


Just to chime in with my two cents here.

Eventually all specifications need to be realized in implementations by large
population of users (vendors etc.) to be successful and accepted. Java has
uniquely established itself as the language of choice by a majority of the
implementor community. JAXR proposes to provide the java interface (and a
reference implementation) that supports ebXML and other registry services.
Having the definers of the ebXML registry services drive this would ensure that
ebXML services are fully supported by the JAXR interfaces. I would see this as a
win-win situation from an ebXML perspective. Not sure how this conflicts with
the (4) conformance tests (5) certification angle. I suppose vendors are free to
realize the ebXML Registry service implementations in the way suitable to them
and JAXR supplies one potential and perhaps easy path. The implementations based
on JAXR could still be subject to any ebXML specified (third-neutral-party)
compliance tests for receiving a compliance certificate.

IMO doing this through Java Community Process is desirable and we would be more
than willing to support and help define the JAXR interfaces.

Best Regards,

Prasad Yendluri.

Bob Sutor wrote:

> The reason why I asked these questions is that since last summer I have been
> talking about various aspects of standards creation. For example, we have
> 1) the creation of the spec
> 2) the creation of an API that is not language-specific
> 3) language-specific bindings
> 4) conformance tests
> 5) certification
> A natural question is how much of 2) - 5) should the creators in 1) produce.
> Many people believe that conformance tests should not be done by the people
> who did the spec because a neutral party might do a better job, although
> possibly with less inside knowledge of ambiguity resolution that is in the
> heads of the implementors. The W3C and OASIS have different opinions here,
> for example. ebXML will have to deal with 4) and 5) eventually.
> In the same way, language-specific bindings can be done by the spec
> implementors or by another organization. Perhaps the spec implementors can
> do a better job at the bindings, if they have the resources available. This
> also makes the general standards/binding development process more scalable
> than always doing in one organization associated with the language.
> Bob Sutor, IBM
> ebXML Vice-Chair

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC