[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!"
Agreed. Rex At 10:36 AM -0700 5/25/05, Duane Nickull wrote: >Rex: > >Regardless of whether orchestration is present, a service can be >invoked and service description can declare all the details >necessary for a consumer to determine if it is suitable to invoke >the service. This should be specialized to fit the particular >requirements for each environment or infrastructure, whether >orchestration if present or not. > >We do need to make some form of statement in alignment with your >sentence below in the RM to show readers that the concept has not >simply been ignored. > >Duane > >Rex Brooks wrote: > >>True, Joe, >> >>I think we might want to consider that there is an implicit ability >>or willingness to orchestrate in the Discovery, Availability and >>Presence member of the SOA Service Definition. >> >>Ciao, >>Rex >> >>At 9:06 AM -0400 5/25/05, Chiusano Joseph wrote: >> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> >>>> From: Christopher Bashioum [mailto:cbashioum@mitre.org] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:01 AM >>>> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >>>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus >>>> Fabric.Stop It!" >>>> >>>> Duane - that's a good point. I'm beginning to think that >>>> orchestration itself is not part of SOA, >>> >>> >>>We could mean that - or we could mean that orchestration itself is not >>>part of our SOA reference model. Two different things. >>> >>>Joe >>> >>>Joseph Chiusano >>>Booz Allen Hamilton >>>Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> > >>>> > -- 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]