RE: [sca-assembly] some of our concerns with the eventing proposal

["Estefan, Jeff A (3100)" <jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>]

Martin,

After listening in on today's conversation, it seems one of the key sticking points is a desire to support the "fire and forget" pub/sub messaging model in which an event producer say is (or wishes to be) completely decoupled from an event consumer(s).  While such models are in ubiquitous use each and every day, I do not believe that such a communication model implies the event consumer(s) are completely decoupled from some third party mediator entity, i.e., an event broker or channel.  There has to be some semantic engagement between the broker/channel and the consumer, at a minimum, an agreed upon information model for understanding the syntax and semantics of the event notification messages and the underlying communication protocol that will be used as part of the interaction.  May seem obvious, but just wanted to get that point across.  Unfortunately, we ran out of time today before I could get on the queue.

A lot of discussion on proposed techniques or "tricks" to add to the SCA-Assembly spec in order to support the event processing paradigm, but have yet to hear a solid business case for doing so. IMHO, of course.

Regards...

 - Jeff E.