[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not?
Rebekah: Wise words. Thanks! Seeking understanding is always a good idea. BTW - has anyone else noticed a huge lag between sending out a post and receiving it back? I seem to be selectively receiving messages in no particular temporal order. Duane Metz Rebekah wrote: >Duane, > >I agree that the committee needs to reach some consensus on these >issues. > >That said, I suggest that maybe we take a step back to understand *why* >there is such difference in opinion (other than we all relish and learn >from healthy intellectual debate). We might have better luck in >reaching consensus on these causes rather than consensus of the >'symptoms' per se. > >When looking at this issue, it appears to me that what we're really >trying to reach consensus on is the key characteristics of these >constructs/concepts. For example, I would argue that a key >characteristic of a message is that it its role in *exchange*. >Thus, it seems to me that we might be proverbially touching different >parts of the same elephant with blindfolds on, essentially looking at >the same thing but resonating more closely with certain characteristics. > > >To add more fodder to the conversation, I would ask, is a message a >message if it is not exchanged? In response, I looked for tangible >examples outside of the technical realm for metaphors that would help >the gap between these perspectives. For example, my husband and I are >looking to purchase a home. When we found a property that we wanted, we >put in a contract on that house. However, it was not a contract, in the >legal sense of the word, until the seller accepted the terms of the >contract and it became ratified. Thus, the critical characteristic of >the contract would be ratification, or mutual acceptance of the terms. >I would equate this to the view that the critical characteristic of a >message is its exchange. Alternatively, one could take the position >that a contract existed as soon as we completed the paperwork. Only its >status or state changed (submitted, ratified, rejected, etc) changed as >events occurred. I would equate this to the viewpoint that a message is >a message even if not exchanged. Both perspectives are valid, but >different - and have implications on the overall model we build. > >Perhaps heading toward consensus from this perspective will be more >unifying than divisive? > >Rebekah > > > >>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]