[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not?
Frank, Nicely put. I think the focus on Service rather than Consumer is a much cleaner approach for an RM. -matt On 7-Jun-05, at 12:28 PM, Francis McCabe wrote: > I always understood the issue to be one of modeling versus > conceptualization. > > What concepts are required in order to be able to talk effectively > about an SOA? Those concepts belong in the RM. > > However, as I have previously said, when you want to talk about > agents communicating, you can either focus on the agents, or on the > conversation. The former approach emphasizes things like agents, > messages, and so on. The latter emphasizes what a legal > conversation looks like -- and does not focus on the agents > themselves. > > In a service oriented world, we have a similar choice: we can focus > on the participants or on the service. A focus on participants > leads to things like messaging, service providers, service > consumers etc. A focus on service leads to things like action, > policy, semantics. > > It is not that there are no service providers or consumers, but > that the focus is elsewhere. > > Frank > > On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:42 AM, 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 >> >> >> 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 >>> 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]