Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop It!"

[John Harby <jharby@gmail.com>]

Is it the responsibility of the service to be orchestratable or is it
the responsibility of the orchestrator to conform? ;)

On 5/25/05, Christopher Bashioum <cbashioum@mitre.org> wrote:
>  Good point.  However, I would still say that SOA does not care if
> orchestration is actually done or not, only that the services are
> orchestratable.
> 
> There are many SOA implementations that do not currently have any
> orchestration, though they do have aggregation.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Metz Rebekah [mailto:metz_rebekah@bah.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 5:01 PM
> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop It!"
> 
> > Can I ask you what would make a single service care that the consumer
> is
> > invoking it as part of an orchestration?  Why should the service care.
> > It's function is simply to facilitate the invocation request.  If
> > someone created a dependency on the service to know about the state of
> > other service invocation requests, that would be very bad architecture
> > IMO and also violate the principles of autonomicity (not really an
> > English word but you get the idea).
> 
> Ah!  So here lies an important distinction that gets back to the
> house/community analogy - and what makes SOA a SOA?  Is SOA == the house
> or is SOA == community?  A single service probably wouldn't care whether
> or not it is being invoked as part of an orchestration, much like a
> house doesn't care if it is in a planned development or urban
> development or a cornfield or an island.  But, a SOA may very well care
> about it, much like a community cares about things like the positioning
> of individual houses and green space (which don't directly related to an
> individual house).
> 
> 
> > I will propose that we accept this axiom:
> >
> > "Services should not have to have explicit knowledge of the states of
> > other services called by a consumer that invokes them"
> 
> So this goes back to the service as an operational concept, and I think
> leads me to think that we are working toward a definition at the
> "community" level and not at the "house" level.
> 
> Rebekah
> 
> 
> 
>