Mike Edwards wrote:
Folks,
I'd like to offer a different perspective....
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
That all sounds good to me (assuming that means no work in Tuscany
on OSOA
things that are not public, which is what you mean right?)
...ant
That's what I mean.
I believe that in addition to implementation of specifications that
are coming out of both OSOA and OASIS, Tuscany does have another role.
Tuscany is an implementation nursery for new areas of work that are
not being worked in in places like OSOA and OASIS. Examples of what I
am thinking about include new implementation types such as Ruby,
JavaScript, XQuery and so on, plus new Binding types such as JSON-RPC.
I think that it is a very valuable aspect of Tuscany to foster
development of new and useful pieces of function such as these. At
some point, some of these should look for a level of standardization
resulting in the creation of a specification in one of the spec
venues, in order to assure consistent implementations between multiple
vendors.
This will not be required in all cases. An example of
non-standardization is the case of the PHP implementation of SCA where
it is most likely that there will only ever by 1 implementation and so
standardization is unnecessary.
Yours, Mike.
+1 to all that, it's a good description of what we are doing in Tuscany,
not incompatible with what we were saying in this thread as we were only
trying to clarify a position with respect to non-public spec work
happening in OSOA.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
