[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
"consume" covers "request". We are not defining a static architecture. SOAP, WSRP, REST...all too specific. -Matt Rex Brooks wrote: > 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]