RE: [soa-rm-ra] RE: One-pager

["Lublinsky, Boris" <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>]

In your definition you effectively equate JA with conversations.

Does it mean that:

·         Joint action is really a conversation?

·         All service invocations are conversational?

If this is the position I have a big problem with this. Conversational means state management which pushes complexity through the roof and typically kills scalability and often performance.

 

From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 4:52 PM
To: rex.brooks@ncoic.org; jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov
Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: One-pager

 

Not sure I agree with Rex (if I've understood correctly).

 

Joint Action is about actions, not about spiritual preparation to act. That is, any JA has its life-time and, correspondingly, the epoch. An ensemble of actions, which we also call session, completes, the JA completes. Since neither consumer-requester nor the service can define when RWE of the JA will be consumed (if at all) but unknown consumers (the shareable part of the RWE), we cannot tie the JA to any demobilization moment; the service may be retired already  and destroyed while the RWE it produces before may be still in the public access area.

 

So, I agree with Chris - every JA has its epoch. We should not mix it with multiple service requests that result in the JA that can exist simultaneously. Any new request results in its own JA as well as in the new instance of the service responding to it (again, the epoch of JA may be called a session, a business transaction, or somehow else. This 'thing' defines which actions are the part of particular JA and which ones belong to about JA for the same service) 

 

- Michael

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks <rex.brooks@ncoic.org>
To: Estefan, Jeff A (3100) <jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2011 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: One-pager

I think that attempting to restrict or constrain the epoch of Joint Action to any arbitrary time-period, especially post invocation, is a problem. in my view, Joint Action is required any time more than one party is required to move a service toward invocation or toward completion once invoked. It stretches from design time to demobilization. Therefore, it does not fit into any specific epoch.

Cheers,
Rex

On 3/11/11 4:05 PM, Estefan, Jeff A (3100) wrote:

Chris,

 

Couple of comments:

 

First, this RAF definition of RWE is quite a bit different from what it was defined in the RM, which really seemed focused on what happens upon service invocation.

 

Second, execution context is not mentioned at all in Sect 3 of the RAF or at least not in earlier drafts.  How is that going to play out in the new updates?

 

Still having a hard time with Joint Action, in particular, determining its epoch.

 

Cheers…

 

- Jeff

---

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.