ws-soap-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yuhichi Nakamura" <>
Subject Re: Potential F2F design session for 3.0?
Date Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:37:18 GMT

Thanks Sanjiva.  I could clarify the purpose of the meeting.
As you mentioned, we need to prepare for the meeting.  At least,
alternative proposals should be
reviewed by the participants, and discussed in advance.


>> > With a group the size we are expecting (based on the number of +1
>> > to the original F2F note), it might be difficult to accomplish all the
>> > tasks you suggest.
>> I'm also concerned about the size of the group. It seems to me an
>> unplanned discussion with a group of > 10 will be tough .. Glen, you
>> probably should do an "agenda" type thing and organize this a bit! :-)

>> > It is achievable to agree on requirements.  One thing I am struggling
>> > is the overall scope of the V3.0 engine work.  Is this a complete
>> > (if so why?).  Is this an evolution of the current Apache SOAP code
>> > if so, how do we decide on the functionality that will be addressed
>> > not?  Do we agree that the F2F is to focus on the Engine part of the
>> > project, or to define the overall effort for v3.0?
>> What we've been calling "3.0" is basically a new implementation of
>> the SOAP protocol in a more flexibile / pluggable way than the current
I agree.
>> code. Clearly we need to write it in a way that we can track the W3C
>> XML Protocol work too.
I am not sure how important to track XML Protocol.  Let me check it.

>> The discussion about project scope was just about how to name this new
>> effort. The comment I made was that eventually we need to expand the
>> scope of this work to cover a set of things, where the protocol engine
>> is just one piece. The current plan is to only do the protocol engine,
>> but it'll be convenient and forward-thinking (IMO) to set up the
>> project Web page etc. to leave the door open for the other parts to
>> evolve.

>> > Given limited face-face time, we should focus on agreeing on scope and
>> > dividing task.  We can do the design through e-mail communication.
Definitely.  Although I have already posted a proposal and codebase, I also
need others'.  How much can we communicate with one antoher in advance?
It is the key to have a great success in F2F.

>> I think the scope is still replacing the current engine. Does anyone
>> disagree?
>> I think we need to somehow work on the design during this F2F. We have
>> several alternate proposals and its hard to unify these via email.

>> Sanjiva.

View raw message