OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebsoa message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [ebsoa] Does SOA Require Registry-Based Dynamic Discovery?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:31 PM
> To: Matthew MacKenzie
> Cc: Chiusano Joseph; 'ebSOA OASIS TC'
> Subject: Re: [ebsoa] Does SOA Require Registry-Based Dynamic 
> Discovery?
> 
> Matt,
> 
> Good thoughts.  Yes - CPAs in registry is to allow the 
> runtime checking of in-bound transactions from partners to 
> ensure they really are who they say they are - and doing the 
> things they are supposed to be doing.  But registry is just a 
> convenient archive at that point.
> 
> CORBA?  Arrggh!  Although I must confess that the gyrations 
> of the BPEL team makes me think of "CORBA by XML" as being a 
> scary outcome we probably don't want to inflict on a long 
> suffering world!!

See OASIS WSRF, and the WS-Transfer specification (some view them this
way).

Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
 
> DW
> 
> Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
> 
> >David,
> >
> >I agree.  It should not be lost on anyone that my day job involves 
> >specific registry technology.  My argument really is aimed 
> at focusing 
> >the task of defining SOA in abstract terms so that it can be 
> applied in 
> >many places where it would be beneficial.  The obvious long 
> term goal 
> >when this model is utilized are SOAs that function within multiple 
> >realizations.  Imagine if I developed an SOA using the SOA 
> RM, and now 
> >can expose my SOA over ebXML, WS, and CORBA.  Awesome!
> >
> >As a side note, why bother putting CPAs in a registry?  It's 
> not like 
> >anyone can join a negotiated collaboration, all you do in 
> that case is 
> >slow the runtime down a little bit.  CPP's, well, now there 
> is a great 
> >thing to register.  Putting CPAs in the registry for any 
> reason other 
> >than archiving is probably not sound architecturally.
> >
> >-Matt
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> >Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:17 PM
> >To: Matthew MacKenzie
> >Cc: 'Chiusano Joseph'; 'ebSOA OASIS TC'
> >Subject: Re: [ebsoa] Does SOA Require Registry-Based Dynamic 
> Discovery?
> >
> >Matt,
> >
> >Good technical answer - from the business stance - I would 
> say an SOA 
> >has to have some shared resource area where agreed too 
> business process 
> >and control mechanisms, rules, state, etc
> >can be referenced and shared.   Otherwise we are back to 
> out-of-band EDI 
> >style non-SOA
> >deployment environments.
> >
> >Now - this could easily be a $3.00 per month common FTP area from an 
> >ISP
> >- as you note
> >Matt - so long as its open to all participants.  The notion of 
> >"registry" does not have to imply a full up ebXML registry 
> deployment.
> >
> >However - the formal agreements between participants, their roles, 
> >procedures and mechanisms should be something that is dynamically 
> >configurable. Whether that is private or public - is then 
> the choice of 
> >the partners.
> >
> >Remember when we first designed ebXML - putting CPAs into 
> registry was 
> >a no-no - since they are private agreements.  Now we have a security 
> >model for registry and ability to control access - it makes sense to 
> >have CPA definitions reachable by machine processes between partners 
> >(but not between everyone in the collaboration!).
> >
> >DW
> >
> >Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>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]