New-age Transactional Systems - Not Your Grandpa's OLTP
John Hugg discusses high volume transaction processing applications with high and low frequency profiles, and how VoltDB can be used for that purpose.
News
The content has been bookmarked!
There was an error bookmarking this content! Please retry.
UDDI and the Framework for Web Services Implementation Technical Committees close
Posted by Mark Little on Jul 02, 2008
The UDDI Specification TC standardized two versions (v2.0 and v3.0)This isn't the end of UDDI development, as the OASIS announcement makes clear: it's still alive and well at the main UDDI site. OASIS announces the closer of technical committees all the time, but this may be different. In recent years the need for registries has grown but the adoption of UDDI has not. Although in the open source arena some ESBs use UDDI, others don't and have voiced doubts over its usefulness. Maybe moving out of OASIS (for now, or permanently is not clear) is not a problem for UDDI, since it has been dogged by these kinds of concerns since its birth. But the number of new users of UDDI does not seem to be keeping pace with the number of new users of registries.
of the UDDI specification set, as well as a Schema Centric XML
Canonicalization Specification V1.0. See:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/tcspecs.htm#uddiv3
UDDI versions 2.0 and 3.0 were approved as OASIS Standards. See:
http://www.oasis-open.org/news/oasis_news_02_03_05.php
and the TC's presentation "UDDI v3: The Registry Standard for SOA", at:
http://www.oasis-open.org/presentations/uddi_v3_webcast_20050222.pdf
The UDDI specification set and associated data models and schemas
provide the basic methods for publication and discovery of Web
services, both within and between enterprises. These standards are
in wide use today, and serve as the cornerstone for standards-based
Web service registries and directories.
As for FWSI, OASIS has this to say:
The FWSI TC produced two specifications, the FWSI FunctionalDid FWSI have an impact on the industry? Certainly the technical committee produced a few documents and had a few meetings, but it was never heavily cross-referenced by vendors or other standards.
Elements Specification v2.0, approved as a Committee Specification,
and the FWSI Web Service Implementation Methodology, approved as a
Public Review Draft.
The FWSI project sought to facilitate implementation of robust Web
services by defining a practical and extensible methodology
consisting of implementation processes, and common functional
elements, for high quality Web services systems.
- This article is part of a featured topic series on SOA
- See more SOA content at: http://www.infoq.com/soa
- Other recent content items in this topic
Let's build a new standard...
by
Dan Diephouse
Posted
Why UDDI is dead and future
by
Deepal Jayasinghe
Posted
Using an Registry/Repository to implement Governance based on OSS principle
by
Paul Fremantle
Posted
Re: Using an Registry/Repository to implement Governance based on OSS princ
by
Paul Fremantle
Posted
-
That's not built around SOAP/web services. See here for more info...
-
One of the reason I see with UDDI registry approach is its complexity. Now the trend is different people are building registry/repository on HTTP and APP , IMO which will be the future. Having said that there are two very good open source registry/repository products out there. Both of them did their releases in last few weeks.
blogs.deepal.org -
I agree with Dan we need a new API based on AtomPub. If you want to read about how to use a new kind of OSS Registry to do SOA Governance, I've written about that in my blog:
pzf.fremantle.org/2008/06/soa-governance-and-op... -
And with a proper link: pzf.fremantle.org/2008/06/soa-governance-and-op...
4 comments
Watch Thread Reply