I wonder if we might consider the term "bind" to be overloaded, i.e.
SOAP binding, HTTP binding, etc. - I say this because sometimes (as we
know) the triangle is referred to as "publish/find/invoke", so some
usages of "bind" may be considered synonymous with "invoke", which
causes the overloading I just mentioned.
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vikas Deolaliker [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 12:21 PM
> To: 'Frank McCabe';
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Definition of "Service Consumer"
>
>
> Using the publish/find/bind framework of SOA...
>
> The entity that publishes is certainly not the consumer. The
> entity that finds may or may not be the consumer but the
> entity that binds is certainly the consumer.
>
> So an entity that "binds" with a service would be the closest
> to a service consumer.
>
> Vikas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank McCabe [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 9:00 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Definition of "Service Consumer"
>
> There is a distinction between the software *entity*
> (agent/component/J2EE bean/.../) that interacts with a
> service in order to achieve some goal, and the person or
> persons for whom that interaction is taking place.
>
> The reason that this distinction is important is similar to
> the distinction between a service interface and the service itself:
> accessing your bank account from an ATM or on-line will use
> different interfaces but ultimately all use the same service.
>
> Here is an example of why its important: the appropriate
> business logic to apply to a service request will depend on
> many factors: the means by which the request was delivered,
> the request itself and the person (or
> persons) for whom the request was made. This last aspect is
> completely independent of mode of requesting and is purely
> business/application specific.
>
> Incidentally, the above definition: "an agent that interacts
> with a service in order to achieve a goal" seems to be a
> reasonable definition of a service requester.
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Gregory A. Kohring wrote:
>
> > Matthew,
> >
> > OK, here a fewer other choices which might be deemed more
> > "respectful"...
> >
> > Service Consumer:
> >
> > 1) End-user of a service.
> >
> > 2) An agent which, acting on behalf of its owner, uses a service.
> >
> > 3) An entity which utilizes a service
> >
> > 4) An entity which consumes the product or information produced by a
> > service.
> >
> >
> > Note all of these definitions depend upon the definition of
> the term
> > "service". Have we agreed on this already? Perhaps we should start
> > there first...
> >
> >
> > -- Greg
> >
> >
> >
> > Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
> >> I think services deserve respect, lets try not to exploit them :-)
> >> Gregory A. Kohring wrote:
> >>> Thomas,
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps one should use a somewhat broader definition
> which captures
> >>> the human user as well:
> >>>
> >>> Service Consumer: An entity which exploits a service.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -- Greg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thomas Erl wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Now that we've decided on the term "service consumer" it may be
> >>>> useful to formally define it. The term "consumer" is used by the
> >>>> WS-I Basic Profile wherein it is simply defined as
> "Software that
> >>>> invokes an instance."
> >>>>
> >>>> Thomas
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ======================================================================
> > G.A. Kohring
> > C&C Research Laboratories, NEC Europe Ltd.
> >
> ======================================================================
> >
>
>
>
