[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebsoa] SOA and Shared Semantics
Dale Moberg wrote: > > -----Original Rant----- was From: Ann Wrightson > [mailto:ann.wrightson@csw.co.uk] > > Which raises a bigger issue, relative to packaging ebSOA output as > (only) relevant to the "ebXML way" (rant approaching :) > > The bigger and more comprehensive a standard, the more useful it looks > to its creators, *and the less useful it is likely to be on the ground* > since adopting it entails grabbing larger "territory" within a solution. > The last thing I need is comprehensive standards (I do most of my work > in projects trying to build stuff that works rather than in standards). > I need neat and usable solutions to specific interoperability problems > that I can introduce *alongside divers other approaches in a clean way*. > If a collection of neat solutions also fit together well to build a > bigger picture when they are adopted incrementally, this is good, but in > a project context, in my experience, needs to manifest (be sellable) as > a "nice to have" future opportunity bonus, not a present necessity. > > Fit-for-purpose standards: 0) do something useful 1) work with a v. wide > range of tools 2) are simple and modular 3) do not change (!!) 4) are > easy for adopters from a wide range of IT backgrounds to understand and > use. > > End of rant. > > Rant discussion-- > > 0. Don't know what ebSOA scope is. Thought I knew, but am awaiting for > consensus. +1. More than two months into the effort, I still am not able to answer this question when people ask me. I ask very straightforward, pointed questions, and all I get in response is a reference to some other initiative. I am also unclear on how useful this initiative might be to folks who don't want to utilize any part of the ebXML framework - that is, those folks who say "I don't see enough ebXML-compliant software in the market to make me feel comfortable investing in this framework" (something I hear quite frequently) Thanks, Joe > So I can't comment on the larger issue of "only relevant to > ebXML" That exclusivity was not part of the scope IMO, but including it > as one relevant factor was part of the scope (or I thought it was). > > 1. Adopting ebXML does not entail grabbing any more territory than what > the specification you choose to use covers. The "highly aligned, loosely > coupled" design principle was to allow you to use CC/UBL and WSDL if you > wanted to. Using ebMS (ebXML Messaging) doesn't require using any other > spec. Were you looking for the term "monolithic"? This is what large > vender detracters say when they are "on message". > > If ebXML Messaging had, for example, been written as 20 different > smaller specifications, would you really be better off for b2b > messaging? Would the 20 work together? Would security (WSS) be done > before routing to your app? Or after? (You better hope before. But the > SOAP processing model is nondetermistic (unless you put in an order > specifying header block) on this point, so maybe you better wait for the > first couple of patches.) And if you error on WSS, will you fault before > you comply with (your choice out of 2) Reliable Messaging header blocks? > If you do, you will get the error back again repeatedly! The total > free-for-all of "dynamic" WS is there for you to adopt! Go for it. It is > not an accident that the study of dynamical systems includes chaos > theory. > > 2. Good luck finding venders that do WS in an interoperable way, with > clean modularity. > If you haven't found the problems with the lack of coordination, you are > probably still dealing with very simple systems. > > 3. Ironically ebXML modules aspired precisely to meet your expressed > goal of "adoptable incrementally and fitting together to solve specific > groups of interop problems." It is my understanding that ebXML people > are still working to attain that goal so I am afraid that new versions > will be part of that reality for a while. Maybe WS won't have versions? -- Kind Regards, Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz | Allen | Hamilton
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]