[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrf] Singleton Resource Pattern
Hey Steve, Please excuse my non-understanding of the
terms that you use but I wonder why “implied” is used. There is
nothing implied about the existence of a resource and the fact that it becomes
the logical recipient of the messages. The introduction of the “singleton
resource pattern” term does not help either. Here’s what I mean... When you create a resource through the
factory pattern, the resource is not implied! You get back an EPR. At the
architectural level you reason about the resource. The destroy message is not
to the service; you are not asking for the service to be destroyed, you are
asking for the resource to be destroyed. Now, how is the resource implied here?
The same with the resource properties. So, when you suggest that there is a thing
as a “singleton resource pattern”, grid service instances come to
my mind and we’ve been there. Even if you suggest that there is no 1-1
association between a Web Service and a resource, that’s how WS-RF users
are going to treat them. A destroy message to the “singleton resource
pattern” service will mean that it’s a request for the resource to
be destroyed and, hence, there will be no need for the service to exist
(dynamic creation of grid service instances anyone?). I understand that this is not your
intention but from an architecture point of view, this is exactly how it looks
like. But it’s probably just me. Regards, -- From:
Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]