2008/12/23 Rob Eamon <[email protected]>: > --- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" > <jones.ste...@...> wrote: >> >> > >> > Integration does not mean use of an intermediary. >> >> Surely integration is always an intermediary in itself? > > Hmm. I'm not sure. Let's examine C -> P. > > C forms the requisite message. > C calls P via the supported protocol. > P processes the message. > P returns a response (if only to say "got it"). > > Let's be more specific: > > C creates the XML.
> C calls P via HTTP, posting the XML. Definitely an EC thing > P parses the XML and processes the data. > P returns an HTTP response (with or without a body). EC again. > > That's an integration. But no intermediary. The participating parties > do the work themselves, although they are using an intermediate > format and protocol. Is that what you mean? HTTP is the intermediary. > >> Depends what you mean by interaction. I tend to limit interaction >> to human interactions (always async, ad-hoc) as opposed to >> integration (can be async, rarely ad-hoc). > > Sweet. More definition debate! ;-) > > What I mean by interaction: A talks to B. No further elaboration as > to ad-hoc, sync/async, etc. So interaction = integration? > >> But C->P via an EC does imply something always happens in the >> middle yes. >> >> > >> > What varies in the implementation is which bits to which piece of >> > work. If all the work is done by consumer and provider, it is >> > still an integration. >> >> RM wise the work is done by the EC. > > What work specifically? And must the EC be realized as a distinct > entity? Depends on the definition of "distinct" "The execution context of a service interaction is the set of infrastructure elements, process entities, policy assertions and agreements that are identified as part of an instantiated service interaction, and thus forms a path between those with needs and those with capabilities" So above it is HTTP and the network. Pretty distinct. > >> What the C & P do is up to them but its the EC that bring it >> together and (IMO) that is a model that works. > > I'm with you on the model. Is it reasonable that C & P > implementations incorporate the EC? I think its hard to do that and arguably not a good idea. > >> Agreed, its part of the EC bit. I think we are all agreeing here >> just using the wonderfully imprecise English language to do so. > > It's a wonder we communicate at all! Or at least we have the illusion > that we've done so. :-) Its the thing that continues to amaze me in IT, people who push for "natural language" definitions on the basis that these will be MORE understandable than technical ones ;) Steve > > -Rob > >
