Actor makes it worse in my opinion.
Frankly, your distinctions between RA and RM centering on components
such as a service consumer are utterly meaningless, and are beginning to
wear on my patience. Even an architecture does not need to explicitly
call out that there is a "consumer" or client. If I were writing an
architecture document for the Apache web server V3, I doubt that it
would be required for me to define that the server needs to serve
clients. Some things in an architecture can safely be implied.
I would not be growing impatient at this if you came to the table with a
serious hole in our considerations of RM. I may agree to SO RM, but I
do not agree to it for the explicit reasons you keep on stating.
-matt
Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> Matt and Duane,
>
> I completely understand your concerns as stated below. Is there
> perhaps a middle ground, where we can constrain expansion into
> architecture? Do comsumers have to be viewed as "endpoints"? Or can
> they be viewed as "actors"? If so, does that change any perspective?
>
> If this does not make sense (in terms of not making sense to include
> service consumers in the RM), and we include them in an RA, I hope we
> can leave open the possibility that this TC's outputs can potentially
> be labeled as:
>
> - A Service Orientation Reference Model (SO RM) - that is, don't label
> this as "SOA RM" but rather "SO RM"
> - A SOA Reference Architecture (SOA RA)
>
> rather than a single SOA Reference Model (SOA RM).
>
> Joe
>
> Joseph Chiusano
> Booz Allen Hamilton
> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com <http://www.boozallen.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 07, 2005 8:14 AM
> *To:* SOA-RM
> *Subject:* Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not?
>
> If I can interject...
>
> I think that Duane and I are concerned with the slippery slope
> that exists when we start including endpoints such as consumers in
> the RM. After consumers will come messages, and the next thing we
> know we'll have a WSDL binding in appendix e or some such.
>
>
> arrrrgggghhhh!!!
>
> :-)
>
> -matt
>
> On 7-Jun-05, at 7:21 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
>> <Quote>
>> 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.
>> </Quote>
>>
>> Duane,
>>
>> This is an idea that I see you have been pushing very hard almost
>> from the start of our TC, yet I believe some of us are perplexed
>> as to why introduction of a service consumer into an RM is
>> against the notion of RM. Can you please clarify for us?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joe
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Duane Nickull [mailto:]
>> *Sent:* Mon 6/6/2005 7:39 PM
>> *To:* <mailto:>
>> *Cc:* 'SOA-RM'
>> *Subject:* Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not?
>>
>> Hi - I'm back!!
>>
>> Comments inline:
>>
>> Peter F Brown wrote:
>>
>> >1) A service is an event
>> >
>> DN - a "service invocation" is an event. The "service" itself is
>> not an
>> event IMO, it is an invoke able entity..
>>
>> >representing a collaboration between two parties
>> >for the use of defined resources: a "service RM" would be
>> concerned with
>> >representing both parties (provider and consumer), the duality
>> of their
>> >interaction through the event and the use of resources...
>> >In this approach:
>> >- service consumer would definitely be in, as one side of the
>> event-based
>> >duality (provider<>consumer);
>> >- a further level of abstraction can be modelled, that of
>> "agent", to
>> >highlight the shared properties of both provider and consumer.
>> In this
>> >manner, it would be easier to answer the problem "how do we
>> model the
>> >situation where a service provider can also be a consumer, and
>> vice-versa?".
>> >They are both agents. Whether they are consumers or providers would
>> >therefore be modelled as a "role" in agent.
>> >
>> >2) A service is a "directed collaboration" between two parties:
>> directed in
>> >the sense that one party provides a service to another: a
>> "service provision
>> >RM" would only be concerned with one side of the duality,
>> representing the
>> >service provider, irrespective of whether the service is used,
>> or whether
>> >there is a consumer at the end of the "pipe"...
>> >
>> >
>> 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
>>
>
