[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [soa-rm] Requesters vs. Consumers
Is it safe to say that we are reaching consensus that we need an element named "Consumer" or something similar for the reference model? Whether a given service provider ever actually provides its service to a consumer is perhaps irrelevant since I have to believe that all SOAs have the intent of providing a service to a consumer. Ron -----Original Message----- From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 8:44 AM To: john@crossconnections.ws Cc: Chiusano Joseph; Thomas Erl; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [soa-rm] Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [soa-rm] Requesters vs. Consumers Umm, yeah :-) The great thing about "consume" is that it doesn't get into specifics about the pattern of consumption. The reference model need not care about how a service is consumed, just that it can be. -Matt john c hardin wrote: > A consumer recipient of a 'push' is still a consumer, even though it > hasn't invoked or requested a service at the time of delivery. > Obviously at some point it has opted-in to the subscription, but not > necessarily at the time of delivery. > > <the lurker speaks...> > > lots of traffic on this list right now... very good stuff > john hardin > > Matthew MacKenzie wrote: > >> Same problem. >> >> You can consume a service without specifically invoking it. >> -Matt >> >> Chiusano Joseph wrote: >> >>> How about "Service Invokers"? >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Joseph Chiusano >>> Booz Allen Hamilton >>> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] Sent: Thursday, >>>> March 31, 2005 9:19 PM >>>> To: Thomas Erl >>>> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >>>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Requesters vs. Consumers >>>> >>>> Consistency with other work aside, "request" strongly suggests how >>>> service consumption is initiated, and that is why I don't want to >>>> use it. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Matt >>>> Thomas Erl wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> It's probably a good time to think about which term we >>>> >>>> >>>> should use to >>>> >>>>> represent the potential element responsible for invoking or >>>> >>>> >>>> initiating >>>> >>>>> a conversation with a service acting as the service provider. >>>>> Regardless of whether this becomes an "official" element within >>>>> our reference model, we will likely need to reference such an >>>> >>>> >>>> element in >>>> >>>>> our documentation. >>>>> >>>>> Below are some considerations we can take into account: >>>>> >>>>> - Both of the position papers submitted so far incorporate the >>>>> term "consumer". This term is also used in the ebSOA specification. >>>>> >>>>> - The W3C Web Services Architecture document submitted by >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank McCabe >>>> >>>>> uses the term "requester" and further qualifies it by suffixing it >>>>> with "entity" or "agent" to represent the owner and >>>> >>>> >>>> software program >>>> >>>>> respectively. (Prior to the current version of the W3C >>>> >>>> >>>> Working Note, >>>> >>>>> this document used the term "service requester" instead of >>>> >>>> >>>> "requester >>>> >>>> >>>>> agent".) >>>>> >>>>> - The W3C Web Services Glossary does not provide a definition for >>>>> "consumer", but defines "requester agent" as follows: "A software >>>>> agent that wishes to interact with a provider agent in order to >>>>> request that a task be performed on behalf of its owner - the >>>>> requester entity." >>>>> >>>>> - The term "requester agent" is used in the W3C WSDL 2.0 >>>>> specification, whereas "consumer" is used in the WSDL 1.1 version. >>>>> >>>>> - The definitions document submitted by Rebekah uses the term >>>>> "requester", most likely because the initial set of >>>> >>>> >>>> definitions were >>>> >>>>> provided by Frank. >>>>> >>>>> Given that we are seeking industry-wide acceptance of our >>>>> reference model, there may be a benefit to keeping our terminology >>>>> in >>>> >>>> >>>> alignment >>>> >>>>> with terms already in use by established (albeit >>>>> implementation-specific) specifications. I personally have no >>>>> preference, but I do recommend we decide on one term and >>>> >>>> >>>> then consider >>>> >>>>> adding a definition to our glossary. We may want to >>>> >>>> >>>> leverage some of >>>> >>>>> the work performed by the W3C Working Group and decide >>>> >>>> >>>> whether we also >>>> >>>>> need separate terms to distinguish owner from implementation. >>>>> >>>>> On a related note, we have not yet discussed the concept of >>>> >>>> >>>> a service >>>> >>>>> or service agent assuming provider and requester/consumer >>>> >>>> >>>> roles. Such >>>> >>>>> a concept would also affect our definitions. >>>>> >>>>> Thomas >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]