OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-assembly message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Fw: [sca-assembly-comment] NEW ISSUE: (1.2) Promotion ofconsumers and producers undermines composability


I have read your correspondence with Dave Booz, and taken a quick look at your revisions. I have a number of things to ask about that, but first I would like to understand the issues here.

I think your points relative to the Feb 12 draft can be summarized as

1. Components within a composite can be directly wired to a domain-level channel (see the example in figure 2-6). As Dave points out, this can be viewed as breaking encapsulation as there is nothing explicit in the component types of components D1 and D2 that tells you that this is going on (since you can't reconfigure it when assembling the composite). You have to look inside the definitions of composites X and Y to see this, and if there is a deep nesting of composites you have to look down all the levels.  

2. The mechanism of linking up producing and consuming components within a composite, e.g. in the case shown in figure 2-5, is awkward. You have to configure the @sources of the consumers and the @targets of the producers to point to the same channel

3. At the moment channels are either completely private (scoped only within a single composite), or completely global (when they are in the domain). There is no mechanism for promoting a channel so that it is visible only to a given composite and its subcomponents.

4. Domain level channels don't seem to be necessary since we could do the same thing by binding to JMS topics.

Please correct me if this is wrong.

In "defence" of the OSOA spec, what we were trying to do is

a) Allow true decoupling of event-centric components, so that it is possible to author a component as a pure consumer and/or producer of events without knowing how these components are going to be assembled. This means keeping details of the channels out of the component types. This is the main motivation for having <producer> and <consumer> elements in the component type and for declaring filters as part of the consumer (if there's no way a component can handle a particular kind of event, it should say so)

b) Allow an assembler - if he/she wishes - to define a tight coupling of components so that they can be wired up without "leakage" of events outside a composite, and without external events coming into the composite uninvited. This is needed when you are modelling event processing applications. This is why we have private channels scoped within components, as shown in figures 2-4, 2-5 and 2-7.

c) Allow loose binding of components, where producers are not aware of the identities of the consumers and vice versa, and where there is some kind of global event distribution mechanism (an event bus if you will) that spans all application components. This is done by having global channels at the domain level

d) Provide an abstraction that allows event distribution to be modelled in a protocol neutral fashion. This is the reason for having channels in the model at all.

Maybe the confusion is caused by accommodating both b) and c) simultaneously.

Returning to the points

1. It is true that you can do this, see figure 2-6, but you don't have to. The alternative is to promote the producers and consumers, so they do become visible at the next level up and then can be wired to a channel (or promoted further) by the person assembling that composite. That's what you would do if you were designing libraries of reusable nested event processing components. On the other hand if you really do have a uniform event bus concept that spans all your components, we felt it would be unnecessarily tedious for people to have to do this all the time.

2. I agree that this is awkward. I have always favoured being able to wire a producer directly to a consumer (effectively having an implicit channel). You should also be able to choose whether you establish this by setting @target on the producer or @source on the consumer. That same mechanism could be used if you have an explicit channel, so you could set the @targets/@sources on the channel to point at the producers/consumer (effectively what Eric does in his example of figure 2-4) rather than the other way round.

3. At the moment we accommodate both use cases (completely private or completely global). Intermediate cases sound interesting, but I am not sure whether anyone really needs them. Just to be clear on how we'd expect things to work at the moment... if you look at figure 2-4 you would normally either wire a producer/consumer (the yellow triangles) to a channel or promote them. That's what the figure shows. You could promote the consumer for component 4, in which case it would receive events from the outside AND events from channel A (which can only have come from components 1 and 2). One other thing one could consider is allowing the input or output of the channel (which are in effect producers and consumers themselves) to be promoted, to allow events from the outside to go directly into channel A without having to go via components 1 or 2, but again I'm not sure why that would be useful.

4. I think modelling the distribution mechanism is a good thing.


Peter Niblett
IBM Senior Technical Staff Member
Member of the IBM Academy of Technology
+44 1962 815055
+44 7825 657662 (mobile)

From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To: OASIS Assembly <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 12/04/2010 17:56
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Fw: [sca-assembly-comment] NEW ISSUE: (1.2) Promotion of consumers and producers undermines composability

Follow up....

I've just posted to the OASIS documents repository a proposal for ASSEMBLY-227.


I posted in PDF and Word format:


These documents are *not* in anything close to final form:
However, before I spent many hours trying to get everything perfect, I figured I should at least know whether the intent is even close to acceptable to the TC.


P.S. My current conception of a channel might look like - see diamond at the bottom edge of the component.

On 04/09/2010 01:19 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:


Forwarding to the main sca-assembly TC list....

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
----- Forwarded by Mike Edwards/UK/IBM on 09/04/2010 09:18 -----
From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To: sca-assembly-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: 08/04/2010 18:18
Subject: [sca-assembly-comment] NEW ISSUE: (1.2) Promotion of consumers and producers undermines composability

Target: sca-assembly-1.2-spec-wd01.doc

Title: Promotion of SCA consumers and producers undermines composibility


In the assembly 1.2 WD 01, consumers and producers are identified as part of the "component type" of a component, whereas "channels" are limited in scope to the boundaries of a composite.  This is contrary to the rest of SCA, where the indication of the communication between components surfaces in the component type, currently as a service or reference.  When needed, services or references can establish concrete bindings, but otherwise communication needs are exposed at the boundary of a composite.  In the case of producers, consumers, and channels, not only can bindings be applied, but also "targets", which then either hide endpoints within a composite, or expose them globally as part of the "global domain."

This makes composition of applications using eventing more difficult.

Further, although producers and consumers can refer to the same target, this is an awkward way for these two constructs to establish that they intend to operate on the same "destination".  When building a composite the composite developer may wish for one component to produce for a channel, and a different component to publish on the same channel, and then promote the combination of producer and consumer.  If the developer only promotes the consumer, or only promotes the publisher, that would be misleading to the composites using that component.  Perhaps it is even an error.

Here, then, are two problems:

Instead of promoting consumers and producers, promote channels.  Move the filter and eventType information on consumers and producers into the channel.


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

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

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]