[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: understanding of SOA ecosystem scope
It’
s close but not exact. 50 · Use of services that are distributed across ownership boundaries; This one is way to generic – it can apply to anything 51 · people and systems interacting with each other, also across ownership
boundaries; In summary service ecosystem is limited to service interactions
not service implementation From: mpoulin@usa.com
[mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] the last FULL version (17 an) of RAF stated: the SOA-RAF makes key 49 assumptions that SOA-based systems involve: 50 · Use of resources that are distributed across ownership boundaries; 51 · people and systems interacting with each other, also across ownership 52 boundaries; 53 · security, management and governance that are similarly
distributed across 54 ownership boundaries; and 55 · interaction between people and systems that is primarily through
the exchange of 56 messages with reliability that is appropriate for the intended
uses and purposes. 57 Even in apparently homogenous structures, such as within a
single organization, 58 different groups and departments nonetheless often have
ownership boundaries 59 between them. This reflects organizational reality as well as
the real motivations and 60 desires of the people running those organizations. 61 Such an environment as described above is an ecosystem and,
specifically in the 62 context of SOA-based systems, is a SOA ecosystem. (I have not found explicit definition of SOA ecosystem in the
Peter/Chris definition spreadsheets) The things is red are, IMO, the reasons of my understanding that a
SOA ecosystem has full visibility into everything it includes. This relates to
the logical and functional aspects of the implementaiton of the service. For
example, to list just a few, interactions with non-service resources, interactions with other services engaged in the
controlled combinations (orchestration and choreography), security controls
that contribute to the business trust between services. I'd like to ask for your comments
on whether this understanding of SOA ecosystem in RAF matches yours
(though I know that Boris disagrees with me already). Cheers, - Michael -----Original Message----- This is interesting. Turns out that management determines
what it needs, but monitoring may only be able to monitor primitives that don’t
map directly to management needs. There will likely be an algorithm (or
two or three) that combines monitoring primitives into information that is
helpful for management decisions. From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] Is there a management capability that applies to the existence
and adequacy of monitoring? That is what I had in mind. Ken From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com] Monitoring is a means – you can’t manage what you do not measure From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] I think the point is monitoring is a required
manageability. Otherwise, you don’t have the information to do the other
manageability. Ken From: mpoulin@usa.com
[mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Now is my tern to follow the discusstion and figure out what is
sold ( and whome to). Will come back with my comments (if any) later. At the mean time,
I can only point that means cannot drive the subject: monitoring cannot drive management - it has to be the other
way around - Michael -----Original Message----- Sold! From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com] Actually this brings one more manageability, that Michael does
not have – usage manageability and metering. I will buy this one From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] I concede on the example but I’m still inclined to think
monitoring needs to be broader than invocation events. Too tired to be more creative. Ken --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Kenneth Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S
H305
phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire
Drive
fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com] Ken, Michael already has network management, that will react at you
situation number 1. So I am still not buying events thingy From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] 1.
I think events have to be more than invocations. A service
consuming a lot of bandwidth may be an event that requires a response from
management. Deciding the response likely falls under other management but the
monitoring itself is needed. If everything relates to an invocation, then
maybe service invocation is sufficient, but I don’t think you want to go there.
I’d stick with monitoring. 2.
As you list things below to fall under Combination or
Composability, the list becomes too diverse and has no focus for what is really
being managed. Everything requires some degree of management and when we
decide something needs to specifically be called out, it needs to be clear why
the SOA ecosystem requires something beyond traditional management. 3.
I think all aspects of performance should be in one place.
Otherwise, it seems like you’re splitting hair to break some out and not
others. Ken --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Kenneth Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S
H305
phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire
Drive
fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 From: mpoulin@usa.com
[mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Boris, I think that our task is not to set a status of
"disagree" but to find a solution to resolve the disagreement. 1. About
Event Manageability. It seems to me that "service invocation
manageability" might work because I certainly do not want to manage events
that may be even outside of SOA ecosystem. Also, I do distinguish (despite of
EDA vision) between the event and reporting of this event. A consideration I
use is this: if nobody (in given realm) listens to/monitors the event, this
does not mean that the event has not happened; one event may cause another
event - a sad example: an earthquake causes a tsunami - and, if we
discard the initial event as non-existed but we recognise the caused event, we
have to deal with things without reasons, out of the blue, which is not natural
and unacceptable to me. So, an events selection manageability is a sort of a view inside
and outside the SOA ecosystem for the service invocation triggers. 2. I do respect IBM’s viewpoint but
they proofed they are not very fast with changes and they still take SOA
service as a Web Service in several of their even modern applications and
papers while others (e.g. Dr. Marc Fiammante) are quite in synch with what we do in OASIS. So, a service, even a composite or aggregate service depends only
on functionality it needs from others. Considering an explicit contracts and a
possibility of the trusted realm, a service (and its implementation like a
process) may not and do not need to know who actually provides required
functionality. By Combination or Composability
Management I mean (but may be did not use proper words to articulate) a
management of service capabilities to be used in the combinations or to combine
others for providing solution for common task. This, particularly, includes:
special relationship between business services and Data Services / Data
Access Layer, enforcement of policies related to the granularity of interfaces,
management of information stores/repositories for meta-data, management of the
processes and procedures – development and run-time – that result in new
service combinations (which may include as integration as testing aspects), and
so on. I hope, you’ve got the picture. Configuration management may also take
place among others in this domain but, IMO, it is certainly not the major
one. 3. The last one – management
of business performances – do require and use SLA and SLA management but the
letter is not always a visible part of the former. This is why I put them
separately: the SLA management can still be provisioned at many different
levels (including pure technical ones) while management of business
performances may be more laid around business KPI. What do you think? - Michael -----Original Message----- Do you see events manageability as service invocation
manageability? I do not think I see it this way On everything else, Let’s see we agree to disagree What you call composability I call dependence – see IBM’s
service model – a service can have both interfaces and dependencies For me also, business performance requires SLA From: mpoulin@usa.com
[mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Boris, at a glance: ·
Event Monitoring Manageability is mandatory
IMO because it is not about notifications but about managing
selection of events that trigger the services. ·
I do not understand "Dependency
manageability" because service do not depend on other services; instead,
they depend on functionality of an arbitrary trusted provider (IBM Dynamic
Process Edition allowed having a 'basket' of potential providers where the
process picked up the actual one when needed on the fly 9not a discovery
mechanism); no end-points were configured up-front). This is not a programmatic
dependency, which many would read into. ·
Combination or Composability Management
is about managing combinations of services that might be realised w/ or
w/o configuration, i.e. via design (composition) or orchestration
(aggregation), by both service provider and consumer. The fact that existing
BPM tools require configuration does not mean that they are the only possible
ways of doing combinations. Also, do not forget about business domain where a
service combination may requires just a new organisational chart :-) ·
Business Performance and Service Level
Agreement are very different things, e.g. the former may have monetary
expression while the latter - pure technical expression. Also, the best
technical expressions (measurements and matrix) do not necessary lead to the
best monetary expressions.
-----Original Message----- Here is my manageability proposal: ·
Lifecycle Manageability ·
Configuration manageability o Dependency
manageability ·
Policies Manageability ·
Contracts manageability ·
Business Performance manageability o SLA
Manageability Event Monitoring Manageability is really about reporting and
should not be there From: mpoulin@usa.com
[mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Folks, I have incorporated all comments and chnages into attached
document. In some places, I have repeated the text (in different font) just to
save and show the comments that I responeded insted but didn't change the text.
I am not sure what tactics we prefer now - to go through all left
comments together in the meeting or for me to resolve each comment with
particular author (in some cases I disagree with the comment, however). Cheers, - Michael 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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]