[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop It!"
Precisely!!!! Duane Christopher Bashioum wrote: > Duane - that's a good point. I'm beginning to think that orchestration >itself is not part of SOA, rather, the end result of an SOA is an >architecture of services that are "orchestratable". > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] >Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:56 PM >To: Michael Stiefel >Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop It!" > >Endpoints are part of a service description IMO. Orchestration of >multiple services is out of the scope of the core RM, much the same way >as how multiple houses are positioned next to each other in a grid >layout is un-necessary in order to define a RM for house. > >A service or house do not have to exist amongst multiple houses in order >to be services/houses. > >Duane > >Michael Stiefel wrote: > > > >>Could we then conceive of endpoints and orchestration in such a >>fashion? Or is the critical point aspect or attribute in which case >>endpoint qualifies, but orchestration does not. >> >>To make a grammatical analogy, the RM defines a substantive, and >>therefore adjectives (aspects and attributes) are part of the RM, but >>verbs (actions) are not. >> >>(side note: I know verbs have aspect, but we are not using the term >>that way). >> >>Michael >> >>At 02:34 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: >> >> >> >>>Since Structural Integrity is an aspect of all houses, it could be >>>part of a RM as an abstract concept. Even if you do not explicitly >>>design a house to have a certain set of structural integrity >>>parameters, it still does. It is not a component itself, just an >>>aspect or attribute. >>> >>>Duane >>> >>> >>>Michael Stiefel wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I thought of structural integrity in terms of the entire house, not >>>>just a wall, but I think your point remains the same. >>>> >>>>Granted that each architecture needs to specify its structural >>>>integrity, but shouldn't the RM have the concept of structural >>>>integrity since it is an abstract concept shared by all RAs. >>>> >>>>Michael >>>> >>>>At 02:06 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>The RM does not necessarily have to get into cardinality rules IMO, >>>>>unless they are very obvious. In the case of a house, you may not >>>>>make consistent rules stating that every house has to have at least >>>>>three walls since a wall can be curved or any number of walls from >>>>>3 up. You may be able to infer from the relationships that there >>>>>is a certain cardinality if the RM for a house said that each room >>>>>has one door. >>>>>That would declare an association between the number of rooms to >>>>>the number of doors. >>>>> >>>>>Structural integrity is an aspect of a wall, which must be >>>>>specialized for each architecture based on a number criteria. The >>>>>RM declares what the wall is and its' purpose, the architect has >>>>>the job of specifying the actual walls to be used for each >>>>>architecture and ensuring they map back to requirements. >>>>> >>>>>You are right - analogies are not definitions, however I have found >>>>>them very useful in conveying the meaning. >>>>> >>>>>Duane >>>>> >>>>>Michael Stiefel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Does the RM understand that some of the concepts are unique and >>>>>>some multiple (without an exact number, you could have one >>>>>>circular wall, 3 walls, 4 walls, etc.)? >>>>>> >>>>>>Using your analogy, how does the RM deal with concepts such as >>>>>>structural integrity. Structural integrity would apply to all >>>>>>house RAs. In my way of thinking concepts such as endpoints or >>>>>>orchestration are analogous to this. >>>>>> >>>>>>In the analogy I would see the reference architecture as Colonial >>>>>>American Reference Architecture, or even more specifically >>>>>>Colonial American Cape Ann, or Colonial American Greek Revival >>>>>>reference architectures. >>>>>> >>>>>>Analogies are useful, but they are not definitions. >>>>>> >>>>>>Michael >>>>>> >>>>>>At 12:56 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>RA means Reference Architecture. As per the previous emails on >>>>>>>this subject, it is a generalized architecture. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The relationship is that architects use a RM as a guiding model >>>>>>>when building a RA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>For example, if you are architecting a house, an RM may explain >>>>>>>the concepts of gravity, a 3D environment, walls, foundations, >>>>>>>floors, roofs, ceilings etc. It is abstract however. There is >>>>>>>nothing specific like a wall with measurements such as 8 feet >>>>>>>high. Note that the RM has only one each of these things - it >>>>>>>does not have 4, 16, 23 walls, just one as a concept. >>>>>>>The architect may uses this model to create a specific >>>>>>>architecture for a specific house (accounting for such things as >>>>>>>property, incline, climate etc) or an architect MAY elect to use >>>>>>>it to build a more generalized reference architecture. The >>>>>>>latter is often done by architects who design houses. When they >>>>>>>sell a house, they must often re-architect the RA for specific >>>>>>>implementation details such as incline of land, climate, facing >>>>>>>the sun etc.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So why do we need a RM? Simple - we now have logical divisions >>>>>>>amongst the components of a house and what they mean. That way, >>>>>>>when a company says " we are a flooring company..", that is >>>>>>>meaningful since we all know what that means. The same applies >>>>>>>to a roofing company. Without the basic consensus on the logical >>>>>>>divisions, a roofing contractor may also try to include the >>>>>>>ceiling and walls as part of his offerings. >>>>>>>That would not work and not allow the general contractor to build >>>>>>>a house very easily since there may not be consensus upon the >>>>>>>division of labor and components to build the house. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Do you guys think an explanation of this nature may be good to >>>>>>>include in the introduction section? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Duane >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Chiusano Joseph wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What is an RA? What is the relationship between an RM and an RA? >>>>>>>>What is >>>>>>>>the RM->RA path for SOA? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Matt also submitted last week (I believe) that we may not even >>>>>>>>need an >>>>>>>>RA. How should that change our notion of RM, if at all? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Joe >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Joseph Chiusano >>>>>>>>Booz Allen Hamilton >>>>>>>>Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >> > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]