Consumer/provider vs Client/server

[Martin P Pain <martinpain@uk.ibm.com>]

Two more arguments for consumer/provider
over client/server:

1. Consumer/provider allows verb forms
"to consume [OSLC/domain]" and "to provide [OSLC/domain]".
Client/server does not have matching verbs. At least not for client side,
and "to serve" doesn't necessarily imply the same as "to
provide".

2. Registries. In the case where a provider
is adding resources to a registry, rather than acting as the server itself
(so the provider PUTs or POSTs resources to a registry, and the consumer
GETs them from the registry) then the "provider" is a "client"
to the registry, and the "consumer" is a "client" to
the registry - the "registry" is a server to both, but may or
may not be seen as the "provider". (The client hopefully doesn't
need to know the difference, but the provider is the one responsible for
fulfilling the requirements of the domain spec(s), not the registry.)
I don't know how well we support this
scenario, but I believe it has been mentioned a couple of times before
in the Automation WG.

So then "client" and "server"
(in their HTTP sense) would refer to the two parties involved in any given
HTTP request/response (we wouldn't have to use these often)
And "consumer" and "provider"
would refer to the roles and responsibilities within the OSLC core and
domain specs.


Martin Pain
Software Developer - Green Hat
Rational Test Virtualization Server, Rational Test Control Panel
OASIS Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration - Automation technical
committee chair

E-mail: martinpain@uk.ibm.com Find me on:  and within IBM on:

IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU