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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

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


Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Update to Service Interface Model (+ New Interaction Dependencies Model)


A couple of points
  I *think* I see what you are getting at. I have a feeling that  
technology independence is not a black or white kind of thing. But,  
let us see how this progresses.
  On a different note, it is pretty clear to me that there are areas  
of the spec that are still up for debate. This is OK with me.
  For the tutorial, if you want to put forward something that is  
'controversial', or 'not baked', this is OK *provided* that there is  
an up front indication of the status -- so that the audience is not  
confused.
  I think that we will also need to be clear with them about the  
overall status of the spec also.

Thanks Jeff,
and ... get a life!!
Frank

On Apr 10, 2008, at 8:23 PM, Jeffrey A. Estefan wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> Thinking about modeling the Service Interface on the way home from  
> work this afternoon (yes, I need to get a life!), I realized that  
> the Service Interface is that element of SOA-based systems that is  
> the reusable piece that is technology opaque.  That is in SOA-based  
> systems, the Service Interface needs to be agnostic to the  
> technology used to implement the Service.  Further, not only does it  
> need to be independent from service implementation, but it needs to  
> be a reusable element that is independent of the technology used to  
> physically interact with the service, i.e., the Service Reachability  
> part of Visibility that includes Service Bindings, Service Location  
> (endpoint), and Service Presence.  Theoretically, there is no reason  
> why a Service could not support multiple protocol bindings and/or  
> endpoints.
>
> Consequently, I've updated the visual model for Service Interface  
> that I sent earlier today that drops the association to Service  
> Reachability.  Ken, please ignore my recommended comments to add  
> descriptive text regarding visibility elements to the Service  
> Interface section of the Service Description Model.   That said, I  
> do suggest that we add some wording along the lines of the  
> aforementioned comments regarding reusability of the service  
> interface and its technology opaqueness.
>
> So where does that leave us with regards to Service Reachability  
> (more specifically, Visibility) and the Service Interface?  The  
> answer is, of course, Interaction, which I believe is what Ken was  
> getting at only slightly more embellished and there's still that  
> issue of "Action" vs. what I'm showing as the Action Model.   
> Interaction has a dependency on both Visibility and Service  
> Interface.  I've created a simplified visual model representing this  
> notion and it is also attached.  I will add this diagram to the  
> Interacting with Services Model along with some supporting text.   
> But not until I get my tutorial updates to you Frank!  I promise!
>
> Regards...
>
>  - Jeff<Interaction_Dependencies.png><Service_Interface.png>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs  
> in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php



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