On 6/7/05, Matthew MacKenzie <> wrote:
> Actor makes it worse in my opinion.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> -matt
>=20
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>=20
> > 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 wou=
ld
> >> >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 =3D 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 bein=
g
> >> 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 everythi=
ng
> >> 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
> >>
> >
>=20
>
