[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
Service production is out of our scope. I think there is a not-so-subtle difference between a producer and provider. -matt Chiusano Joseph wrote: > <Quote> > 1. The term for the concept: I think it is safe to say that "service > consumer" is the term we should use for , well... service consumers. > </Quote> > > Would it make sense to consider the opposite of "service consumer" to > be "service producer" (rather than "service provider")? > > Kind Regards, > > Joseph Chiusano > > Booz Allen Hamilton > > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] > *Sent:* Fri 4/1/2005 12:44 PM > *To:* Schuldt, Ron L > *Cc:* Matthew MacKenzie; john@crossconnections.ws; Chiusano Joseph; > Thomas Erl; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* Re: [soa-rm] Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [soa-rm] Requesters vs. > Consumers > > Ron: > > Not yet. There are two issues before us. > > 1. The term for the concept: I think it is safe to say that "service > consumer" is the term we should use for , well... service consumers. > > 2. Is the concept in the reference model: Whether or not that is part of > the reference model is another issue. > > Duane > > Schuldt, Ron L wrote: > > >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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > -- > *********** > Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com > Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/ > Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources - > http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html > *********** >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]