[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, 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!! 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]