Globus GT 4.0.3 Not WSRF compliant!
Downloaded Globus GT4.0.3 to evaluate it for the NanoCMOS project. Unfortunately it uses really old versions of the WSRF and WS-Addressing specifications. This means that GT 4.0.3. is not WSRF compliant. It also means that services developed with GT 4.0.3 are not WSRF compliant either!
I asked when it would become compliant, but have got no response yet.
I cannot recommend that we use GT4 until we know what its timelines are. Once it does become compliant there is a strong chance older versions will not interoperate, making existing code and services obselete. Also many other WS-* tools are using the correct version of WS-Addressing, so they won't play nicely with GT4.
I asked when it would become compliant, but have got no response yet.
I cannot recommend that we use GT4 until we know what its timelines are. Once it does become compliant there is a strong chance older versions will not interoperate, making existing code and services obselete. Also many other WS-* tools are using the correct version of WS-Addressing, so they won't play nicely with GT4.
posted by Mark Mc Keown at 6:10 AM
2 Comments:
Mark,
Which other tools might we be using that we would need to interoperate with? As long as we're using a consistent set of tools, we should be OK.
I'm more concerned about the WS-A compliance than WSRF compliance, but this is from a very superficial understanding of the situation.
Dave.
Mark,
You raise a few different issues:
1) The fact that different tooling support different versions of WS-Addressing is certainly an obstacle for interoperability. As far as I know, neither .NET nor Axis 1.2 support the final WS-Addressing spec. Neither does GT4.0.3, as you point out. I personally think that tooling should be more lenient in what versions of specs like WS-A they accept, but that is a different issue.
2) When will GT support the final WS-A, WSRF, and WS-N? We haven't been pushing on that, for a few reasons: a) people haven't been asking, b) other tooling is not ready, and c) we wanted to work out how to address backward compatibility. However, we recognize that it is time to set a date, and we will do so in the next few weeks. I will be surprised if it is not within the 6 months.
3) We didn't respond to your emails asking about this. My apologies! However, sticking it in your blog seemed to work (-:
Regards -- Ian.
Post a Comment
<< Home