[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [soa-rm] Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [soa-rm] Requesters vs. Consumers
I suspect that we will end up by needing both Requesters and Consumers as component definitions when there is a reason to distinguish between a Consumer that has a formal binding to a Service, such as the formal Consumer and Producer relationships via SOAP that are built into WSRP, and one-offs who want a service, whether it is a software component that can be incorporated into their own systems, or a particular data value returned only once by the service, which would cover a broad range of RESTful Requesters, as well as the myriad Requesters that might use SourceForge, for instance, to pick up a service class library. We might as well start discussing, that hornet's nest while we are at the business of Consumer v. Requester. Ciao, Rex At 10:44 AM -0500 4/1/05, Matthew MacKenzie wrote: >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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-849-2309
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]