How about? "Service Collection" "Service Aggregate"
-- dims PS: or "Service Mix" :) On 7/18/05, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Anne: > > I am fairly certain that JBI had nothing whatsoever to do with the "one > interface per service" decision in WSDL. Really. Though I definitely do > support that decision, I agree we shouldn't get into it here. > > Regarding terminology, though - got any other suggestions? > > --Glen > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Thomas Manes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: "Srinath Perera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 1:19 PM > Subject: Re: [Axis2] CHANGE : Components vs. Services? > > > My concern is that EJBs, JBs, JSPs, servlets, MDBs, etc. are > "components". "Services" are larger-grained applications that comprise > multiple "components". > > Having recently spent the time to read the JBI spec, I kinda get the > impression that it's responsible for the bone-headed decision by the > WSDL 2.0 WG to establish what I view as an arbitrary and inappropriate > constraint that a service can implement only one interface. (A service > should implement at least three interfaces: its functional interface, > its metadata interface, and its management interface, and it's quite > reasonable for a service to implement multiple functional interfaces. > Somehow the "inheritance" argument [an interface can inherit multiple > interfaces] doesn't sit well with me. But I shouldn't rant about it > here...) > > In any case, IBM and BEA have no plans to support JBI. Oracle is > clearly on the fence about JBI. IMNSHO, JBI as unnecessary overhead. > Therefore I don't think that JBI terminology should influence Axis > terminology. > > Anne > > On 7/17/05, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Anne: > > > > The idea here is that a "foo" is a deployment unit which a) shares > > classloaders, b) is packaged as a single thing, and c) implements 1..N > > services (where "service" == WSDL 2.0 service). > > > > JBI calls something like this thing a "component" (the larger class of > > which > > SE's and BC's are subtypes). I don't see why it's particularly > > non-intuitive to call it that. > > > > I'm not stuck on the name at all, and would be fine with something else > > (got > > any suggestions?), but I do think the concept that one .aar might > > implement > > multiple WSDL services is something we should integrate (pre-1.0). > > > > --Glen > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Anne Thomas Manes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Cc: "Srinath Perera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 9:59 PM > > Subject: Re: [Axis2] CHANGE : Components vs. Services? > > > > > > Who came up with the concept that a "component" is of larger > > granularity than a "service"? that terminology is just remarkably > > non-intuitive! > > > > Anne > > > > On 7/16/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have a longer reply coming but a definite -1 to doing anything this > > > drastic before 1.0. > > > > > > I'll explain further when I write my detailed response .. apologies for > > > the two-stage note :(. > > > > > > Sanjiva. > > > > > > On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 21:17 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote: > > > > Hi Glen; > > > > > > > > I think the basic idea is to widen the scope of a componenet! and > > > > replace service archive with a componenet archive. This allowed number > > > > of services to share a same class loader. > > > > > > > > mm .. seems ok to me (may be need to think bit more before commit my > > > > self :) ). > > > > Thanks > > > > Srinath > > > > > > > > On 7/16/05, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Axis2'ers: > > > > > > > > > > I've been thinking recently about a couple of things with respect to > > > > > Axis2. First of all, the idea that we might want to support some > > > > > concept of "service groups" - a bunch of individual services which > > > > > are > > > > > related somehow (via state, implemented with the same code, etc). > > > > > Second of all, I'm thinking of building a JBI implementation on top > > > > > of > > > > > Axis2, and JBI's notion of "components" are deployable units which > > > > > can > > > > > each provide multiple services. > > > > > > > > > > What about changing our model slightly to enable "components" to > > > > > implement more than one Web Service? This would entail, I believe: > > > > > > > > > > * Change axis/services to axis/components (just for clarity) > > > > > > > > > > * Add a "ComponentContext" level to the context stack between > > > > > ServiceContext and ConfigurationContext > > > > > > > > > > * Components would be "engage()"d just like services (although > > > > > looking > > > > > at the code I don't see this for services yet... need to dig around > > > > > more) > > > > > > > > > > * component.xml (replacement for service.xml) would contain 1..N > > > > > <service> elements each of which looks like the current service.xml, > > > > > so > > > > > the minimal one-service file would be > > > > > <component><service>...</service></component>. We could allow > > > > > optimizing this to just <service> at the top level too! > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > --Glen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
