Thanks Michael,
I don't especially favor either Orchestration or Chorerography. We
must make allowance to accommodate both, in my opinon. I was just
pointing out where I thought our collective focus has been and why
that perspective colors our use of Policy as integral with Contracts.
Cheers,
Rex
At 6:11 PM -0500 4/12/09, Mike Poulin wrote:
>I am in favour of Orchestration for SOA 10 times more than for
>Choreography because the latter requires services modification for
>each new choreography it participates in and this decreases SOA
>flexibility in adopting business changes. Everything Rex said about
>events and policies is applicable to Orchestration as well but
>Orchestration is much cleaner from SO perspectives and much more
>dynamic. In Yahoo! SOA User group, we have discussed this topic a
>few times and always concluded the advantage of Orchestration over
>Choreography for service-oriented environment.
>
>- Michael
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rex Brooks"
>To: "James Odell" ,
>Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
>Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:47:14 -0700
>
>
>If we had spent more time on Choreography, where events trigger
>policy-based rules for transactions and/or communications, it would
>be somewhat easier to pull together a stand alone Policy
>subsection. Of course, Orchestration also employs policy-based
>rules, but resorting to a Conroller Application removes the
>requirement for either human intervention based on judgment
>required by rules and assessing state, or some heuristic algorithm.
>
>I'd still just add the standalone policy subsection rather than
>eliminating the Policies and Contracts which I think we need for
>more reasons than just continuity from the RM.
>
>Cheers,
>Rex
>
>At 7:03 PM -0400 4/11/09, James Odell wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>> Hmmm. While the two "the enforcement of the two is fairly
>> closely aligned" -- contracts are not necessary for Policies,
>> only the other way around. Policies, IMO should stand alone on
>> their own. The CEP folks argue that policies and events are
>> "fairly closely aligned". I can name a half dozen other areas
>> that could say the same. The bottom line is that: Policy is a
>> concept that may be necessary, but not sufficient for other
>> areas. Therefore, I strongly support its own sub-section.
>>
>> -Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/11/09 6:11 PM, "Francis McCabe" indited:
>>
>> Hi Jim
>> Thank you for taking a look.
>> As far as policies go, we have havered a little (to use a
>> Scottish-ism) on how to organize it. In the RM work we closely
>> identified the two -- with the distinction being that contracts
>> are agreed to and policies are asserted. Once you have either
>> one, the enforcement of the two is fairly closely aligned.
>> Frank
>> On Apr 11, 2009, at 2:46 PM, James Odell wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After yet another reading of the SOA-RA (Foundation?) and having
>> sat through the recent spate of meetings, I have the following
>> say about the reorganization of the SOA-RA:
>>
>> Overall, I think that the chapters and topics are sequenced in a
>> coherent and logical manner. Perhaps, it is because I read it
>> too many times now. But, I don't think so.
>> Also, I understand the need to minimize the amount of work
>> needed on the SOA-RA at this point in its development. We need
>> to get it released for public comment - without compromising
>> quality and understandability, of course.
>> Having said this, the only thing that bothers me enough to
>> suggest a reorganizational change is the area of Policies:
>>
>> 1) Policies, in general, are depicted in document far earlier
>> than they are finally addressed (by 40-50 pages). Since policies
>> - IMO - are an important ingredient in the SOA-RA, I would like
>> to see them addressed earlier. (My personal opinion is that
>> policies are not mentioned anywhere near the amount that they
>> should. For example, they are used in events, composition of
> > services, roles, and organizations. However, since this would
>> involve additions to the current document, I will not push this)
>>
>> 2) I strongly dislike grouping the entire topic with contracts.
>> While policies are used for contracts, Policy is a standalone
>> concept - which neither depends on nor is used solely with
>> Contract. (Even the OMG and W3C treat policies as a separate
>> notion.) Why is this reasonable? Because policies are used in a
>> variety of situations - only one of which is contracts. By
>> placing Policies in lock step with (and almost subordinate to)
>> with Contracts is not appropriate, IMO. 3) My suggestion:
>> separate Policies and Contracts into two distinct subsections
>> (e.g., 4.4 and 4.5). In short, this would provide clarity for
>> the notion of Policy and not require much change to the current
>> document.
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
>
>-- Rex Brooks
>President, CEO
>Starbourne Communications Design
>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>Berkeley, CA 94702
>Tel: 510-898-0670
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>--
>Be Yourself @ mail.com!
>Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
>Get a Free Account at <http://www.mail.com/Product.aspx>www.mail.com!
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
