"consume" covers "request". We are not defining a static architecture.
SOAP, WSRP, REST...all too specific.
-Matt
Rex Brooks wrote:
> I suspect that we will end up by needing both Requesters and Consumers
> as component definitions when there is a reason to distinguish between
> a Consumer that has a formal binding to a Service, such as the formal
> Consumer and Producer relationships via SOAP that are built into WSRP,
> and one-offs who want a service, whether it is a software component
> that can be incorporated into their own systems, or a particular data
> value returned only once by the service, which would cover a broad
> range of RESTful Requesters, as well as the myriad Requesters that
> might use SourceForge, for instance, to pick up a service class
> library. We might as well start discussing, that hornet's nest while
> we are at the business of Consumer v. Requester.
>
> Ciao,
> Rex
>
> At 10:44 AM -0500 4/1/05, Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
>
>> Umm, yeah :-)
>>
>> The great thing about "consume" is that it doesn't get into specifics
>> about the pattern of consumption. The reference model need not care
>> about how a service is consumed, just that it can be.
>>
>> -Matt
>> john c hardin wrote:
>>
>>> A consumer recipient of a 'push' is still a consumer, even though it
>>> hasn't invoked or requested a service at the time of delivery.
>>> Obviously at some point it has opted-in to the subscription, but not
>>> necessarily at the time of delivery.
>>>
>>> <the lurker speaks...>
>>>
>>> lots of traffic on this list right now... very good stuff
>>> john hardin
>>>
>>> Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
>>>
>>>> Same problem.
>>>>
>>>> You can consume a service without specifically invoking it.
>>>> -Matt
>>>>
>>>> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How about "Service Invokers"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>> Joseph Chiusano
>>>>> Booz Allen Hamilton
>>>>> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:] Sent: Thursday,
>>>>>> March 31, 2005 9:19 PM
>>>>>> To: Thomas Erl
>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Requesters vs. Consumers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consistency with other work aside, "request" strongly suggests
>>>>>> how service consumption is initiated, and that is why I don't
>>>>>> want to use it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>> Thomas Erl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's probably a good time to think about which term we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> should use to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> represent the potential element responsible for invoking or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> initiating
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a conversation with a service acting as the service provider.
>>>>>>> Regardless of whether this becomes an "official" element within
>>>>>>> our reference model, we will likely need to reference such an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> element in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our documentation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Below are some considerations we can take into account:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Both of the position papers submitted so far incorporate the
>>>>>>> term "consumer". This term is also used in the ebSOA specification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - The W3C Web Services Architecture document submitted by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frank McCabe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> uses the term "requester" and further qualifies it by suffixing
>>>>>>> it with "entity" or "agent" to represent the owner and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> software program
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> respectively. (Prior to the current version of the W3C
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Working Note,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this document used the term "service requester" instead of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "requester
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> agent".)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - The W3C Web Services Glossary does not provide a definition
>>>>>>> for "consumer", but defines "requester agent" as follows: "A
>>>>>>> software agent that wishes to interact with a provider agent in
>>>>>>> order to request that a task be performed on behalf of its owner
>>>>>>> - the requester entity."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - The term "requester agent" is used in the W3C WSDL 2.0
>>>>>>> specification, whereas "consumer" is used in the WSDL 1.1 version.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - The definitions document submitted by Rebekah uses the term
>>>>>>> "requester", most likely because the initial set of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> definitions were
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> provided by Frank.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given that we are seeking industry-wide acceptance of our
>>>>>>> reference model, there may be a benefit to keeping our
>>>>>>> terminology in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> alignment
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with terms already in use by established (albeit
>>>>>>> implementation-specific) specifications. I personally have no
>>>>>>> preference, but I do recommend we decide on one term and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then consider
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> adding a definition to our glossary. We may want to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> leverage some of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the work performed by the W3C Working Group and decide
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> whether we also
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> need separate terms to distinguish owner from implementation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On a related note, we have not yet discussed the concept of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a service
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or service agent assuming provider and requester/consumer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> roles. Such
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a concept would also affect our definitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
>
