[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not?
Matt, Sorry to wear on your patience - just participating as a member of a TC and trying to understand concepts that I frankly don't understand, that's all. I think the lack of a service consumer in a SOA Reference Architecture (and also, IMO, a SOA Reference Model) is a serious hole. I think that using the rationale that I believe you are using (if I understand correctly), one may also say - for example - why is a service description necessary, shouldn't it be assumed? Or why is a service contract necessary, etc. I realize that this is subjective and you may disagree with it - and I respect that - but that has to do with folks in general coming from different backgrounds, different experiences, different histories, etc. - and such diversity makes for a great TC, I think. So this IMO is a serious hole. I realize that this may make you impatient, but I am here to express my opinion as a member of the TC. I am also just speaking for myself, as there may not be even one other single individual in the TC that believes that excluding a service consumer from a SOA RM and/or a SOA RA is incorrect in their view. Kind Regards, Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 8:52 AM > To: SOA-RM > 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]