[Oxygentank] [wsf-c-dev] content on WSF/C on wso2.org

[Chatra Nakkawita]

Hi,

With regard to the content I used, I've integrated data from content
sent by Sanjiva on WSF (overall) and Samisa on  WSF for C.

I need to clarify 2 things:
1. Rampart C module, is it not called Apache Rampart/C? I know that this
module is a sub-project of Apache Axis2/C and not a project of its own.
But this does not qualify it to be called Apache Rampart/C. Or have we
been wrong on this matter from day1? We've been using 'Apache Rampart/C'
in all our documentation/articles/tutorials etc on wso2.org.

2. With regard to calling project 'WSF for C'- At the rebranding,
project managers had decided on using 'for' to specify different
implementations of a product. Even the abbreviated version was decided
as WSO2 WSF for C. WSAS being the first product to be rebranded, I was
asked to change WSO2 WSAS/Java to WSO2 WSAS for Java in all the
documentation. All managers followed the same branding mechanism for
consistency.We've now followed this naming convention for all the
resources JIRA, Wiki, Forums etc for all WSO2 projects in wso2.org

As for the rest of the feed back from James and Samisa, I will
incorporate into the page. I will send in a draft before it is published.

Thanks for the feed back,
Chatra

James Clark wrote:

>On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 13:06 +0600, Samisa Abeysinghe wrote:
>  
>
>>Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Hi Guys,
>>>
>>>I was looking at http://wso2.org/projects/wsf/c and there's just too 
>>>many words there. Can we cut it down by about 75% and have a brief 
>>>description?
>>>
>>>Sanjiva.
>>>      
>>>
>>I just gave the following. The rest has been added by Chatra.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't think this still needs a lot of work.  We need to focus on
>providing as concisely as possible the information that a potential user
>would need in order to decide whether WSF/C is of interest to them.
>
>It's also important to strike the right tone. It should be factual and
>technical and steer well clear of anything that sounds like
>marketing-speak.
>
>  
>
>>Web Services Framework (WSF) for C
>>    
>>
>
>Wouldn't it make sense to consistently abbreviate Web Services Framework
>for C as "WSF/C" rather than as WSF for C?
>
>  
>
>>WSO2 Web Services Framework (WSF) for C is a fully open source framework 
>>for providing and consuming web services.
>>    
>>
>
>Does "fully" add anything?  That's marketing-speak not information.  The
>relevant information is that we're open source licensed under the Apache
>License 2.0.  We should deal with the open-source-ness in one place
>rather than splitting it into two.
>
>  
>
>> WSO2 WSF for C is a collection 
>>of libraries and tools, supporting basic web services technologies such 
>>as XML, SOAP, WSDL. REST as well as the Web Services specifications such 
>>as WS-Addressing, MTOM, WS-Security and WS-Reliable Messaging. 
>>    
>>
>
>This is very wishy washy.  It would be more useful to have a bulleted
>list of the key specifications (including versions) supported; we can
>group related specifications to make it easier to understand.
>
>Just saying we support XML is not helpful.
>
>  
>
>>It comes 
>>with both HTTP and XMPP transport support.
>>
>>WSO2 WSF for C is equipped with the wsclient tool that acts as a Web 
>>Service client. wsclient can be given an XML payload as input, along 
>>with the service endpoint and would output the the XML payload of the 
>>received reply. Various options of wsclient allows the user to leverage 
>>the full Web services stack, including WS-* specifications as well as 
>>raw REST like invocations.
>>    
>>
>
>I think this far too long.  The information we need to convey is that we
>have a tool that provides a command-line interface for consuming web
>services.
>
>  
>
>>WSO2 WSF for C provides the basic framework on which other scripting 
>>language bindings could be built; WSO2 WSF for PHP and WSO2 WSF for AJAX 
>>are based on WSO2 WSF for C. It could also be embeded in other software 
>>where the full Web services stack support is required.
>>    
>>
>
>The "could"s make it sound very vaporware-ish.  The stuff about WSF/PHP
>and AJAX really belongs on those pages.  The rest ought to be obvious
>from the description of the library aspect of WSF/C.
>
>  
>
>> It is based on 
>>Apache Axis2/C and also includes Apache Sandesha2/C.
>>    
>>
>
>Why is this in the same paragraph as stuff on scripting?
>
>This doesn't really answer the key question which is likely to arise in
>potential users mind, which is "why use WSF/C rather than Axis2/C?".
>
>James
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Oxygentank mailing list
>Oxygentank at lists.wso2.com
>https://www-lk.wso2.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/oxygentank
>
>
>  
>