[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not?
Joe, If you don't understand the subject matter or approach dictated by an abstract reference model, then I suggest that you go off and gain an understanding somewhere other than here. Many of us are full time software/systems architects and are donating our valuable time to this work in order to produce something useful, but not necessarily to educate non-architects on the nuances of our trade. That being said, I value the different perspectives found on this TC, and suggest that if you need to understand something you not jump to a conclusion and try to force it over all other business. Work from the problem, not a malformed conclusion. -Matt On 7-Jun-05, at 9:03 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote: > Matt, > > Sorry to wear on your patience - just participating as a member of > a TC > and trying to understand concepts that I frankly don't understand, > that's all. I think the lack of a service consumer in a SOA Reference > Architecture (and also, IMO, a SOA Reference Model) is a serious > hole. I > think that using the rationale that I believe you are using (if I > understand correctly), one may also say - for example - why is a > service > description necessary, shouldn't it be assumed? Or why is a service > contract necessary, etc. > > I realize that this is subjective and you may disagree with it - and I > respect that - but that has to do with folks in general coming from > different backgrounds, different experiences, different histories, > etc. > - and such diversity makes for a great TC, I think. > > So this IMO is a serious hole. I realize that this may make you > impatient, but I am here to express my opinion as a member of the TC. > > I am also just speaking for myself, as there may not be even one other > single individual in the TC that believes that excluding a service > consumer from a SOA RM and/or a SOA RA is incorrect in their view. > > Kind Regards, > Joseph Chiusano > Booz Allen Hamilton > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 8:52 AM >> To: SOA-RM >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not? >> >> Actor makes it worse in my opinion. >> >> Frankly, your distinctions between RA and RM centering on >> components such as a service consumer are utterly >> meaningless, and are beginning to wear on my patience. Even >> an architecture does not need to explicitly call out that >> there is a "consumer" or client. If I were writing an >> architecture document for the Apache web server V3, I doubt >> that it would be required for me to define that the server >> needs to serve clients. Some things in an architecture can >> safely be implied. >> >> I would not be growing impatient at this if you came to the >> table with a serious hole in our considerations of RM. I may >> agree to SO RM, but I do not agree to it for the explicit >> reasons you keep on stating. >> >> -matt >> >> Chiusano Joseph wrote: >> >> >>> Matt and Duane, >>> >>> I completely understand your concerns as stated below. Is there >>> perhaps a middle ground, where we can constrain expansion into >>> architecture? Do comsumers have to be viewed as "endpoints"? Or can >>> they be viewed as "actors"? If so, does that change any perspective? >>> >>> If this does not make sense (in terms of not making sense >>> >> to include >> >>> service consumers in the RM), and we include them in an RA, >>> >> I hope we >> >>> can leave open the possibility that this TC's outputs can >>> >> potentially >> >>> be labeled as: >>> >>> - A Service Orientation Reference Model (SO RM) - that is, >>> >> don't label >> >>> this as "SOA RM" but rather "SO RM" >>> - A SOA Reference Architecture (SOA RA) >>> >>> rather than a single SOA Reference Model (SOA RM). >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> Joseph Chiusano >>> Booz Allen Hamilton >>> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >>> >> <http://www.boozallen.com/> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---------- >> >>> *From:* Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 07, 2005 8:14 AM >>> *To:* SOA-RM >>> *Subject:* Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not? >>> >>> If I can interject... >>> >>> I think that Duane and I are concerned with the slippery slope >>> that exists when we start including endpoints such as >>> >> consumers in >> >>> the RM. After consumers will come messages, and the >>> >> next thing we >> >>> know we'll have a WSDL binding in appendix e or some such. >>> >>> >>> arrrrgggghhhh!!! >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> -matt >>> >>> On 7-Jun-05, at 7:21 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote: >>> >>> >>>> <Quote> >>>> If we do vote to include the SC, we then have to open up the RM >>>> to everything else that follows which means that it won't be a >>>> RM, it will be architecture. >>>> </Quote> >>>> >>>> Duane, >>>> >>>> This is an idea that I see you have been pushing very >>>> >> hard almost >> >>>> from the start of our TC, yet I believe some of us are >>>> >> perplexed >> >>>> as to why introduction of a service consumer into an RM is >>>> against the notion of RM. Can you please clarify for us? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---------- >> >>>> *From:* Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] >>>> *Sent:* Mon 6/6/2005 7:39 PM >>>> *To:* peter@justbrown.net <mailto:peter@justbrown.net> >>>> *Cc:* 'SOA-RM' >>>> *Subject:* Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not? >>>> >>>> Hi - I'm back!! >>>> >>>> Comments inline: >>>> >>>> Peter F Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> 1) A service is an event >>>>> >>>>> >>>> DN - a "service invocation" is an event. The "service" >>>> >> itself is >> >>>> not an >>>> event IMO, it is an invoke able entity.. >>>> >>>> >>>>> representing a collaboration between two parties >>>>> for the use of defined resources: a "service RM" would be >>>>> >>>> concerned with >>>> >>>>> representing both parties (provider and consumer), the duality >>>>> >>>> of their >>>> >>>>> interaction through the event and the use of resources... >>>>> In this approach: >>>>> - service consumer would definitely be in, as one side of the >>>>> >>>> event-based >>>> >>>>> duality (provider<>consumer); >>>>> - a further level of abstraction can be modelled, that of >>>>> >>>> "agent", to >>>> >>>>> highlight the shared properties of both provider and consumer. >>>>> >>>> In this >>>> >>>>> manner, it would be easier to answer the problem "how do we >>>>> >>>> model the >>>> >>>>> situation where a service provider can also be a consumer, and >>>>> >>>> vice-versa?". >>>> >>>>> They are both agents. Whether they are consumers or >>>>> >> providers would >> >>>>> therefore be modelled as a "role" in agent. >>>>> >>>>> 2) A service is a "directed collaboration" between >>>>> >> two parties: >> >>>> directed in >>>> >>>>> the sense that one party provides a service to another: a >>>>> >>>> "service provision >>>> >>>>> RM" would only be concerned with one side of the duality, >>>>> >>>> representing the >>>> >>>>> service provider, irrespective of whether the service is used, >>>>> >>>> or whether >>>> >>>>> there is a consumer at the end of the "pipe"... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I would like to call for a vote on this too to put it >>>> >> to bed for >> >>>> once an >>>> all. My assertion = If I architect something with a service, a >>>> consumer >>>> does not have to be present for it to be "service >>>> >> oriented". Nor do >> >>>> messages, networks, signals, pings, security, encryption etc >>>> etc. This >>>> is much the same as stating that a "message" does not >>>> >> have to be >> >>>> sent in >>>> order for it to be a "message". It can exist with or >>>> >> without being >> >>>> transmitted. >>>> >>>> If we do go the way of the service provider and >>>> >> service consumer, >> >>>> this >>>> could be done in an illustrative (non-normative) >>>> >> manner in the RM or >> >>>> (and I favor this idea) as part of a reference >>>> >> architecture. If >> >>>> we do >>>> vote to include the SC, we then have to open up the RM >>>> >> to everything >> >>>> else that follows which means that it won't be a RM, it will be >>>> architecture. >>>> >>>> I had hoped we could gain consensus on this and avoid a vote >>>> however I >>>> feel a vote may be inevitable. >>>> >>>> BTW - has anyone else noticed that the list is very slow today? >>>> It took >>>> 5 hours for my last message to come back to me via this list? >>>> >>>> Duane >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]