[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
And the fact that BPEL has both Abstract and concrete processes, brings the two even closer -----Original Message----- From: James Odell [mailto:email@jamesodell.com] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 12:27 PM To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization For me, the metaphor is not ice cream, it's two sides of the same coin. I commonly switch back and forth between Interaction diagrams (choreography) and activity diagrams using swimlanes (orchestration). At the end of the day, it's just a flow of processes with some indication of role/organization playing. The representation is up to the individual how they want to represent a process flow. You can map one representation into another. My 1.8 cents. -Jim On 4/13/09 12:44 PM, "Francis McCabe" indited: > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]