Paul,
> Here is a resend with corrections:
I'm not sure what triggered a "resend with corrections", but I did
notice that you changed the item on which I had previously commented:
> 2. Maintain CORBA as the control protocol and design our own
> (simple) data transfer protocol, later integrating IPP data
> transfer protocol when available.
What is the OMG's timing such that you feel compelled to design your own
data transfer protocol instead of simply waiting for the IPP results? I
realize that you state an intention to integrate the IPP method when
available, but you still seem pretty intent on designing your own protocol
without even knowing what the IPP will end up with.
As far as I know, the IPP schedule remains the same, ie, the first draft
should be done by the summer of 1997. Is your schedule much more aggressive
than that such that you don't think the OMG can wait for the IPP results?
I would have thought that part of the "coordination" you mentioned in
your message had (at least) something to do with playing a part in the
definition of the transport requirements, etc.
Am I missing something here?
Please don't get me wrong; the OMG certainly can do whatever it wants
to do. But if real coordination is desired, then an immediate declaration
of duplicate activities (ie, transfer protocol design) seems orthogonal
to that desire.
Hey, if nothing else, the IPP group would *sure* like to hear YOUR ideas
for a transfer protocol! ;-)
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm at underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03015-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------