[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
Talking about favoring orchestration over choreography, or vice versa, is like mandating vanilla over chocolate ice cream. Surely it is up to each scenario/application provider to make best choices for this? On Apr 13, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Rex Brooks wrote: > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]