ws-soap-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Mitchell <>
Subject RE: V3.0 CVS repository
Date Thu, 02 Nov 2000 13:41:18 GMT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ruby/Raleigh/IBM []
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 5:36 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: V3.0 CVS repository
> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> > Do we create a new module (ala xml-soap) or a subdir under
> > the current xml-soap? I think the latter would be better,
> > but can understand people's preference for the prior.
> My preference is for the former.  Furthermore, I would 
> suggest that only
> people who have actually contributed to V2 be given commit 
> access to V3.
> One of my disappointments with this project is the number of 
> people who
> endorsed this initially and then never participated.  Anybody 
> who has been
> active with either V2 or V3 should be permitted to both.

+1 on a new module vice part of the existing module, mostly due to the
extent of the 

> > This raises another issue with the 3.0 code- with the W3C XML
> > Protocol activity up and running, we need to gear up to
> > supporting that. [I'm of the pre-conceived idea that this group
> > would track that work and provide compatible implementations ..
> > is that what others believe too?]
> +1
> BTW - Should the project be renamed?

+1 as well. Glen and I are both part of the XML Protocol group, so tracking
that work should not be a problem. What this means of course, is that the
scope of the project has expanded beyond SOAP per se, and into other
XML-based protocols. i think this probably has some interesting implications
for the 3.0 design, the major one being that the XML message processing
engine would need to process multiple classes of messages (SOAP 1.1, XML
Protocol, etc...)

However, I do not think 3.0 will support both SOAP/1.1 and XML Protocol, b/c
of timing. The XML Protocol WG charter
( shows a Candidate
Recommendation by April 2001. I think we will likely want (and achieve) a
3.0 release before that time.

I think if we agree now that this project will do an XML Protocol
implementation later, we should a) change the project name to something more
general, b) avoid use of protocol-specific terminology in the code and
documentation and c) design 3.0 as a general-purpose XML message processor.

> > I'd like to take the approach of expanding the set of committers.
> Works for me.
> - Sam Ruby

View raw message