[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. Cheers, Rex 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. > >Cheers, >Rex > >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: >https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > >-- >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]