Feeds

Rival web services specs destined for OASIS

Reliability comes double

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile

Uncertainty surrounds the future of separate initiatives for web services reliability, after Microsoft and IBM announced they will submit a jointly authored specification to OASIS.

Microsoft and IBM are to submit WS-ReliableMessaging (WS-RM) to OASIS with the backing of 14 companies and organizations.

WS-RM is the latest milestone in the companies' slowly unfolding WS- roadmap, outlined in 2002. This particular specification was also co-authored with BEA Systems and Tibco Software.

The proposed specification, though, would join a pre-existing standard covering reliable web services messaging that is already firmly established at the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS).

Web Services Reliability 1.1 has already been developed with the backing of Sun, Oracle, NEC, Hitachi and Fujitsu. Sun, a long-time critic of Microsoft which last year buried its hostility towards the company in a broad-ranging legal settlement, has also expressed its support for WS-RM.

News of the rival specifications is the latest twist in a saga that has run for the best part of four years. This has seen Microsoft and IBM push their own web services standards agenda while various consortia have developed their own parallel specifications.

Critics accuse IBM and Microsoft of trying to shape standards to their own advantage. They say the companies want to charge vendors and users for their intellectual property embedded in the WS- roadmap specifications.

But recently, the heat has left much of the debate as IBM, in particular, talked of convergence between the rival specifications.

It is uncertain what action OASIS will take, in light of yesterday's announcement. One potential course of action, given the recent flavor of the debate for convergence, would be to combine the separate works.

An OASIS spokesperson said the organization has only just begun to review the proposed charter, and was unable to provide further insight into what might happen. ®

Related stories

WS Reliable Messaging creeps forward
Web services watchdogs
OASIS open standards not open enough

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk

More from The Register

next story
Google+ goes TITSUP. But WHO knew? How long? Anyone ... Hello ...
Wobbly Gmail, Contacts, Calendar on the other hand ...
Preview redux: Microsoft ships new Windows 10 build with 7,000 changes
Latest bleeding-edge bits borrow Action Center from Windows Phone
Microsoft promises Windows 10 will mean two-factor auth for all
Sneak peek at security features Redmond's baking into new OS
UNIX greybeards threaten Debian fork over systemd plan
'Veteran Unix Admins' fear desktop emphasis is betraying open source
Google opens Inbox – email for people too stupid to use email
Print this article out and give it to someone techy if you get stuck
DEATH by PowerPoint: Microsoft warns of 0-day attack hidden in slides
Might put out patch in update, might chuck it out sooner
Redmond top man Satya Nadella: 'Microsoft LOVES Linux'
Open-source 'love' fairly runneth over at cloud event
prev story

Whitepapers

Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.