[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebsoa] Does SOA Require Registry-Based Dynamic Discovery?
Matt,
+1
When the XML/edi group first defined the "Fusion of Five" seven years
ago now - the key thing
was to use XML to allow dynamic configuration and dynamic referencing.
This is why the registry became a key part in facilitating - not just
the process and participants,
but also the rules and vocabulary. And we had the big fight as to
runtime / design time use
of registry. V1 of ebXML says design time only - but that wall has
already come down.
The Interop we did for XML2004 shows full up runtime use of Registry for
ebXML.
As ebXML evolves and with BPSS V2 - we now have much more SOA behaviours
built-in to
BPSS. That is why I describe BPSS V2 as a water-shed development -
because now BPSS
takes its place right alongside registry as an enabler that fulfills the
"agent" capabilities envisioned
in the Fusion of Five. To do that you need to be able to track state,
and assert facts and
check rules. If you do not have some common area for doing this state
alignment - you are
going to get into big trouble (or make a lot of telephone calls and FAXs!!).
Of course you can design simple binary-party collaborations (classic
EDI) that does not need
that all - but the whole "sell" of ebSOA is to move to support a new
collaborative world....
DW
to allow Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
> Further thoughts:
>
>
>
> SOA really is an architectural pattern. This is where I am leading
> this thread.
>
>
>
> My goal in promoting SOA is not to speed adoption of web services or
> ebXML technology, but rather it is to promote dynamic component
> architectures. Plug & Play for services if you will. The choice of
> enabling technology is more or less dependent on audience and intended
> reach of the solution.
>
>
>
> -Matt
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:13 PM
> *To:* Yunker, John; Matthew MacKenzie; ebSOA OASIS TC
> *Subject:* RE: [ebsoa] Does SOA Require Registry-Based Dynamic Discovery?
>
>
>
> Thanks John - I'm going to take all 4 parts of your excellent comments
> below separately, and comment further. You basically said:
>
>
>
> An SOA without registry by definition is limited
>
>
>
> [JMC] Limited in what way? I assume because there is no dynamic
> discovery, and if the interface requirements and/or service location
> changed, it would require an out-of-band mechanism. I would assert
> that it is limited if the technical and business requirements led to
> an anticipation of updates to the interface requirements and/or
> service location on a regular basis - otherwise, is it *really* limited?
>
>
>
> An SOA without registry by definition is private
>
>
>
> [JMC] So if a SOA-based system is being used among 2 or more
> organizations, and the technical and business requirements *do not
> lead* to an anticipation of updates to the interface requirements
> and/or service location on a regular basis, then the SOA is "private"?
> Seems orthogonal to me...
>
>
>
> An SOA with a registry is open
>
>
>
> [JMC] Open to who? If it does not have a registry, it is not open?
>
>
>
> An SOA with a registry is dynamic
>
>
>
> [JMC] Agree! (one out of 4 ain't bad ;)
>
>
>
> Thanks again!
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Joseph Chiusano
>
> Booz Allen Hamilton
>
> Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Yunker, John [mailto:yunker@amazon.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:06 PM
> *To:* Chiusano Joseph; Matthew MacKenzie; ebSOA OASIS TC
> *Subject:* RE: [ebsoa] Does SOA Require Registry-Based Dynamic
> Discovery?
>
> From my view the "registry requirement" is more a function of the
> distributed nature of the participants, the number and type of
> services, and the amount of change. A registry provides a method
> for decoupling "the use of an SOA" from "direct communication of
> the participants about HOW to use the SOA".
>
>
>
> An SOA without registry by definition is limited and private
>
>
>
> An SOA with a registry is open and dynamic
>
>
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2004 9:01 AM
> *To:* Matthew MacKenzie; ebSOA OASIS TC
> *Subject:* RE: [ebsoa] Does SOA Require Registry-Based Dynamic
> Discovery?
>
> Thanks Matt. From that I take:
>
>
>
> - Discovery in general is required for SOA (cannot function
> without it)
>
> - Whether it is (what I will call) "fundamental" discovery -
> meaning your first example below - or "registry-based"
> discovery depends on technical and business requirements.
>
>
>
> I just cannot foresee trying to convince a current or
> potential customer that they have to put up $XX,XXX for a
> registry product if the technical and business requirements do
> not call for it, just to comply with someone's definition of
> the term "SOA".
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Joseph Chiusano
>
> Booz Allen Hamilton
>
> Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2004 11:57 AM
> *To:* Chiusano Joseph; 'ebSOA OASIS TC'
> *Subject:* RE: [ebsoa] Does SOA Require Registry-Based
> Dynamic Discovery?
>
> My opinion is that a registry is nothing more than a very
> explicit service discovery device.
>
>
>
> An SOA does need a method of discovering services, and
> consuming them, but this method may in some cases be
> subtle. For example, my SOA may operate on the premise
> that consumers all are aware of an enumeration of service
> types, and their port numbers (think /etc/services in the
> unix world), and allowable IP ranges for finding
> services. Clients may be configured something like:
>
>
>
> {
>
> Services imap, http, ssh, daytime, pop3, portmap
>
> IPRange 192.168.0.0/24
>
> }
>
>
>
> A client with such a configuration does have a way of
> discovering services that are available to it, and of
> course, a way of binding to them.
>
>
>
> Contrast this with a registry driven SOA:
>
>
>
> {
>
> ServiceRegistry http://foo/registry
>
> }
>
>
>
> The only difference is in the implementation detail and
> verbosity of information available. Conceptually, they
> are the same.
>
>
>
>
>
> --Matt MacKenzie
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2004 11:38 AM
> *To:* ebSOA OASIS TC
> *Subject:* [ebsoa] Does SOA Require Registry-Based Dynamic
> Discovery?
>
>
>
> What is the TC's opinion on the answer to the question of
> "does SOA require registry-based dynamic discovery"? I
> know that Discovery is a pattern in the .047 spec, which
> leads me to believe that the position is that SOA does not
> *require* registry-based discovery.
>
>
>
> For example, suppose that:
>
>
>
> - 2 organizations are using Web Services in a "SOA-like"
> manner (meaning shared services represented as Web
> Services, that are invoked by other Web Services).
>
>
>
> - There is no registry-based dynamic discovery, perhaps
> because the organizations agree that these service
> locations are completely (or relatively) stable, and that
> if the locations change, there will be some out-of-band
> mechanism for propagating updated WSDL documents
>
>
>
> Are these 2 organizations therefore *not* using a
> service-oriented architecture? That is, does the second
> point completely negate the first? Or, is it all really a
> matter of business and technical requirements?
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Joseph Chiusano
>
> Booz Allen Hamilton
>
> Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
>
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]