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] SOA-RA(F) reorganization

Thanks Michael,

I don't especially favor either Orchestration or Chorerography. We 
must make allowance to accommodate both, in my opinon. I was just 
pointing out where I thought our collective focus has been and why 
that perspective colors our use of Policy as integral with Contracts.


At 6:11 PM -0500 4/12/09, Mike Poulin wrote:
>I am in favour of Orchestration for SOA 10 times more than for 
>Choreography because the latter requires services modification for 
>each new choreography it participates in and this decreases SOA 
>flexibility in adopting business changes. Everything Rex said about 
>events and policies is applicable to Orchestration as well but 
>Orchestration is much cleaner from SO perspectives and much more 
>dynamic. In Yahoo! SOA User group, we have discussed this topic a 
>few times and always concluded the advantage of Orchestration over 
>Choreography for service-oriented environment.
>- Michael
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rex Brooks"
>To: "James Odell" , soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
>Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:47:14 -0700
>If we had spent more time on Choreography, where events trigger
>policy-based rules for transactions and/or communications, it would
>be somewhat easier to pull together a stand alone Policy
>subsection. Of course, Orchestration also employs policy-based
>rules, but resorting to a Conroller Application removes the
>requirement for either human intervention based on judgment
>required by rules and assessing state, or some heuristic algorithm.
>I'd still just add the standalone policy subsection rather than
>eliminating the Policies and Contracts which I think we need for
>more reasons than just continuity from the RM.
>At 7:03 PM -0400 4/11/09, James Odell wrote:
>>  Hi Frank,
>>  Hmmm. While the two "the enforcement of the two is fairly
>>  closely aligned" -- contracts are not necessary for Policies,
>>  only the other way around. Policies, IMO should stand alone on
>>  their own. The CEP folks argue that policies and events are
>>  "fairly closely aligned". I can name a half dozen other areas
>>  that could say the same. The bottom line is that: Policy is a
>>  concept that may be necessary, but not sufficient for other
>>  areas. Therefore, I strongly support its own sub-section.
>>  -Jim
>>  On 4/11/09 6:11 PM, "Francis McCabe" indited:
>>  Hi Jim
>>  Thank you for taking a look.
>>  As far as policies go, we have havered a little (to use a
>>  Scottish-ism) on how to organize it. In the RM work we closely
>>  identified the two -- with the distinction being that contracts
>>  are agreed to and policies are asserted. Once you have either
>>  one, the enforcement of the two is fairly closely aligned.
>>  Frank
>>  On Apr 11, 2009, at 2:46 PM, James Odell wrote:
>>  Hi all,
>>  After yet another reading of the SOA-RA (Foundation?) and having
>>  sat through the recent spate of meetings, I have the following
>>  say about the reorganization of the SOA-RA:
>>  Overall, I think that the chapters and topics are sequenced in a
>>  coherent and logical manner. Perhaps, it is because I read it
>>  too many times now. But, I don't think so.
>>  Also, I understand the need to minimize the amount of work
>>  needed on the SOA-RA at this point in its development. We need
>>  to get it released for public comment - without compromising
>>  quality and understandability, of course.
>>  Having said this, the only thing that bothers me enough to
>>  suggest a reorganizational change is the area of Policies:
>>  1) Policies, in general, are depicted in document far earlier
>>  than they are finally addressed (by 40-50 pages). Since policies
>>  - IMO - are an important ingredient in the SOA-RA, I would like
>>  to see them addressed earlier. (My personal opinion is that
>>  policies are not mentioned anywhere near the amount that they
>>  should. For example, they are used in events, composition of
>  > services, roles, and organizations. However, since this would
>>  involve additions to the current document, I will not push this)
>>  2) I strongly dislike grouping the entire topic with contracts.
>>  While policies are used for contracts, Policy is a standalone
>>  concept - which neither depends on nor is used solely with
>>  Contract. (Even the OMG and W3C treat policies as a separate
>>  notion.) Why is this reasonable? Because policies are used in a
>>  variety of situations - only one of which is contracts. By
>>  placing Policies in lock step with (and almost subordinate to)
>>  with Contracts is not appropriate, IMO. 3) My suggestion:
>>  separate Policies and Contracts into two distinct subsections
>>  (e.g., 4.4 and 4.5). In short, this would provide clarity for
>>  the notion of Policy and not require much change to the current
>>  document.
>>  All the best,
>>  Jim
>-- Rex Brooks
>President, CEO
>Starbourne Communications Design
>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>Berkeley, CA 94702
>Tel: 510-898-0670
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>Be Yourself @ mail.com!
>Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
>Get a Free Account at <http://www.mail.com/Product.aspx>www.mail.com!

Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670

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