[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: some of our concerns with the eventing proposal
To inform the technical discussion we'll be having tomorrow, I'd like to shed some light on TIBCO's concerns with the existing proposal. The following is not exhaustive or terribly detailed, but is enough to begin discussion. 1. Eventing and publish-subscribe messaging are not the same thing. While it is useful for SCA to define a pub-sub alternative for the current wiring paradigm, that does not have to imply definition of new componentType concepts like consumer and producer. We believe that pub/sub messaging can and should be fit into SCA without affecting the developer model. 2. SCA already provides a means to to define interface descriptions for one-way MEPs. For example, abstract WSDL be used to define interface contracts for one-way interfaces; that is, interfaces containing exclusively in-only or out-only MEPs. Forcing developers to use or define alternate descriptions for the set of inbound messages, or completely forgoing those definitions, forces developers to a different model for no apparent benefit. 3. The proposed event definition language is entirely new ground from a standardization perspective. Standards should follow state-of-the- art, not lead it. In any case, the proposal should be cast as an alternative interface type appropriate to services and references. Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]