[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not?
Actor makes it worse in my opinion. Frankly, your distinctions between RA and RM centering on components such as a service consumer are utterly meaningless, and are beginning to wear on my patience. Even an architecture does not need to explicitly call out that there is a "consumer" or client. If I were writing an architecture document for the Apache web server V3, I doubt that it would be required for me to define that the server needs to serve clients. Some things in an architecture can safely be implied. I would not be growing impatient at this if you came to the table with a serious hole in our considerations of RM. I may agree to SO RM, but I do not agree to it for the explicit reasons you keep on stating. -matt Chiusano Joseph wrote: > Matt and Duane, > > I completely understand your concerns as stated below. Is there > perhaps a middle ground, where we can constrain expansion into > architecture? Do comsumers have to be viewed as "endpoints"? Or can > they be viewed as "actors"? If so, does that change any perspective? > > If this does not make sense (in terms of not making sense to include > service consumers in the RM), and we include them in an RA, I hope we > can leave open the possibility that this TC's outputs can potentially > be labeled as: > > - A Service Orientation Reference Model (SO RM) - that is, don't label > this as "SOA RM" but rather "SO RM" > - A SOA Reference Architecture (SOA RA) > > rather than a single SOA Reference Model (SOA RM). > > Joe > > Joseph Chiusano > Booz Allen Hamilton > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com <http://www.boozallen.com/> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 07, 2005 8:14 AM > *To:* SOA-RM > *Subject:* Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not? > > If I can interject... > > I think that Duane and I are concerned with the slippery slope > that exists when we start including endpoints such as consumers in > the RM. After consumers will come messages, and the next thing we > know we'll have a WSDL binding in appendix e or some such. > > > arrrrgggghhhh!!! > > :-) > > -matt > > On 7-Jun-05, at 7:21 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote: > >> <Quote> >> If we do vote to include the SC, we then have to open up the RM >> to everything else that follows which means that it won't be a >> RM, it will be architecture. >> </Quote> >> >> Duane, >> >> This is an idea that I see you have been pushing very hard almost >> from the start of our TC, yet I believe some of us are perplexed >> as to why introduction of a service consumer into an RM is >> against the notion of RM. Can you please clarify for us? >> >> Thanks, >> Joe >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] >> *Sent:* Mon 6/6/2005 7:39 PM >> *To:* peter@justbrown.net <mailto:peter@justbrown.net> >> *Cc:* 'SOA-RM' >> *Subject:* Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not? >> >> Hi - I'm back!! >> >> Comments inline: >> >> Peter F Brown wrote: >> >> >1) A service is an event >> > >> DN - a "service invocation" is an event. The "service" itself is >> not an >> event IMO, it is an invoke able entity.. >> >> >representing a collaboration between two parties >> >for the use of defined resources: a "service RM" would be >> concerned with >> >representing both parties (provider and consumer), the duality >> of their >> >interaction through the event and the use of resources... >> >In this approach: >> >- service consumer would definitely be in, as one side of the >> event-based >> >duality (provider<>consumer); >> >- a further level of abstraction can be modelled, that of >> "agent", to >> >highlight the shared properties of both provider and consumer. >> In this >> >manner, it would be easier to answer the problem "how do we >> model the >> >situation where a service provider can also be a consumer, and >> vice-versa?". >> >They are both agents. Whether they are consumers or providers would >> >therefore be modelled as a "role" in agent. >> > >> >2) A service is a "directed collaboration" between two parties: >> directed in >> >the sense that one party provides a service to another: a >> "service provision >> >RM" would only be concerned with one side of the duality, >> representing the >> >service provider, irrespective of whether the service is used, >> or whether >> >there is a consumer at the end of the "pipe"... >> > >> > >> I would like to call for a vote on this too to put it to bed for >> once an >> all. My assertion = If I architect something with a service, a >> consumer >> does not have to be present for it to be "service oriented". Nor do >> messages, networks, signals, pings, security, encryption etc >> etc. This >> is much the same as stating that a "message" does not have to be >> sent in >> order for it to be a "message". It can exist with or without being >> transmitted. >> >> If we do go the way of the service provider and service consumer, >> this >> could be done in an illustrative (non-normative) manner in the RM or >> (and I favor this idea) as part of a reference architecture. If >> we do >> vote to include the SC, we then have to open up the RM to everything >> else that follows which means that it won't be a RM, it will be >> architecture. >> >> I had hoped we could gain consensus on this and avoid a vote >> however I >> feel a vote may be inevitable. >> >> BTW - has anyone else noticed that the list is very slow today? >> It took >> 5 hours for my last message to come back to me via this list? >> >> Duane >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]