-------- Original Message --------
Forwarded because I used wrong email account.
Agreed, every JA has its epoch, but that epoch is not constrained to
post invocation. it's when we try to constrain to that, we run into
problems. Going into detail to show how JAs can occur is causing us
headaches. So I suggest just giving the definition and not going into
great detail.
Cheers,
Rex
On 3/14/11 2:51 PM, mpoulin@usa.com wrote:
> 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.
> >
> > CheersâEUR¦
> >
> > - Jeff
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
--------------000408040706090402030203
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Agreed, every JA has its epoch, but that epoch is not constrained to
post invocation. it's when we try to constrain to that, we run into
problems. Going into detail to show how JAs can occur is causing us
headaches. So I suggest just giving the definition and not going
into great detail. <br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Rex<br>
<br>
On 3/14/11 2:51 PM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href=""mailto:mpoulin@usa.com">mpoulin@usa.com</a> wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Not sure I agree with Rex (if
I've understood correctly).<br>
> <br>
> Joint Action is about actions, not about spiritual
preparation to<br>
> act. That is, any JA has its life-time and, correspondingly,
the<br>
> epoch. An ensemble of actions, which we also call session,
completes,<br>
> the JA completes. Since neither consumer-requester nor the
service<br>
> can define when RWE of the JA will be consumed (if at all)
but<br>
> unknown consumers (the shareable part of the RWE), we cannot
tie the<br>
> JA to any demobilization moment; the service may be retired
already<br>
> and destroyed while the RWE it produces before may be still
in the<br>
> public access area.<br>
> <br>
> So, I agree with Chris - every JA has its epoch. We should
not mix it<br>
> with multiple service requests that result in the JA that can
exist<br>
> simultaneously. Any new request results in its own JA as well
as in<br>
> the new instance of the service responding to it (again, the
epoch of<br>
> JA may be called a session, a business transaction, or
somehow else.<br>
> This 'thing' defines which actions are the part of particular
JA and<br>
> which ones belong to about JA for the same service)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> - Michael<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message----- From: Rex Brooks
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href=""mailto:rex.brooks@ncoic.org"><rex.brooks@ncoic.org></a> <br>
> To: Estefan, Jeff A (3100)
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href=""mailto:jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov"><jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov></a> Cc:<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href=""mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org">soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href=""mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org"><soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org></a> Sent:<br>
> Mon, Mar 14, 2011 6:40 pm Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE:
One-pager<br>
> <br>
> I think that attempting to restrict or constrain the epoch of
Joint<br>
> Action to any arbitrary time-period, especially post
invocation, is a<br>
> problem. in my view, Joint Action is required any time more
than one<br>
> party is required to move a service toward invocation or
toward<br>
> completion once invoked. It stretches from design time to<br>
> demobilization. Therefore, it does not fit into any specific
epoch.<br>
> <br>
> Cheers, Rex<br>
> <br>
> On 3/11/11 4:05 PM, Estefan, Jeff A (3100) wrote:<br>
>> Chris,<br>
>> <br>
>> Couple of comments: / / First, this RAF definition of RWE
is quite<br>
>> a bit different from what it was defined in the RM, which
really<br>
>> seemed focused on what happens upon service invocation.<br>
>> <br>
>> Second, execution context is not mentioned at all in Sect
3 of the<br>
>> RAF or at least not in earlier drafts. How is that going
to play<br>
>> out in the new updates?<br>
>> <br>
>> Still having a hard time with Joint Action, in
particular,<br>
>> determining its epoch.<br>
>> <br>
>> Cheers…<br>
>> <br>
>> - Jeff</span><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Rex Brooks<br>
President, CEO<br>
Starbourne Communications Design<br>
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison<br>
Berkeley, CA 94702<br>
Tel: 510-898-0670<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------000408040706090402030203--
|