Service orientation in my solution is in Documentum service offered a service (via JMS) and all interested (the ATG Dynamo servers) were able to use it. In the contrast, the Documentum's solution was based on blind push of information to pre-defined IP address with no mechanism for the consumers to change them at wish (but only through the negotiation with and reconfiguration of the Documentum server). I think that my solution was service-oriented while the Documentum's one was much more traditional P2P integration. This is the about "the right way of thinking" or freedom for consumers (specific to SO) rather than technology comparison.
- Michael ________________________________ From: Dennis Djenfer <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, December 26, 2009 10:23:30 PM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Descriptions vs Contracts I don't get why your solution is service oriented. All I can read from your exemple is two kind of solutions for an integration problem. They have different technical solutions and quality attributes, but I don't get why one of them is service oriented. // Dennis Djenfer Michael Poulin wrote: > > >I >think, Sun Tzu in his The Art of War has given us the >receipt for SOA implementation for downtime saying>"Nothing is >as important as having the right way of >thinking." > > >SO is about SO thinking; SO needs technologies and expensive >systems at the very last, if ever, moment. SO is not in technologies >like BPEL and others. You can build service orientation into regular >code if you think first about it. > > >For example, several years ago I had a problem to solve: our >Documentum server prepared Web content, which had to be used by the >Application/ Web Servers (ATG Dynamo that time) to publish on the Web, >but did not notify ATG Dynamo when the content was ready. Our Business >publisher authored the content but could not manage the publishing >time. In my SO Solution, I placed Documentum' s meta-file about prepared >content into MOM/Topic and made all ATG Dynamo servers to subscribe to >the Topic announcements. The ATG Dynamo servers used to be re-booted >nightly but they were able to get all missed information and the new >one due to the durable subscription to the MOM Topic. Where ATG Dynamo >servers were shut down and where they (or their replacements) came up >on-line (i.e. their IP address) did not matter to the solution. [When >Documentum learnt this solution from us, they provided a free >integration Documentum-ATG Dynamo via Web channel. In their >solution, Documentum not only updated the data-store with the prepared >content but also sentthe appropriate Web 'requests' to the >registered ATG Dynamo servers. It looked fine except for the cases >when ATG Dynamo servers lost all information when being down and had to >get on-line with exactly the same IP address they registered with the >Documentum server before. This was pure integration solution while I >can consider my solution was much more service oriented.] > > >- Michael > > > ________________________________ From: >Hitoshi Ozawa <htshoz...@gmail. com> >To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com >Sent: Fri, December >25, 2009 10:56:29 PM >Subject: Re: >[service-orientated -architecture] Descriptions vs Contracts > > >I think you've hit the major difference we're having. I'm in an >actual project and tailoring my service so they can actually be >implemented with the current available technology, development members, >and other constraints. Also, with the economic slow down, it is also >necessary to reduce cost. > >There was a mention of BPEL in the other thread, and I think the >basic technology is interesting, but the current situation requires too >knowledge of too many specifications that it almost impossible to >educate development members to complete a project in time. Of course, >in a small project, I can just do it myself but in a large project, >that's impossible. > >SOA is dying not because the theory behind it is bad, but that >what most people are preaching can not currently be implemented in a >project. The tight economy is also sifting the emphasis from "to >be" more toward "can be". > >>Anne's cartoon showed a "SOA dinosaur", but IMHO the dinosaur really >isn't the concept of SOA itself, it more of us who's not adjusting to >the current economic market. > >Happy Holidays, >H.Ozawa > >2009/12/25 Steve Jones <jones.steveg@ gmail.com> > > >>I'm designing them in this way but unfortunately in >>implementation there isn't the technology to support this stuff. >> WS-Contract or WS-SLA never happened and there isn't anywhere near the >>formalism required. >> >> >>Steve >> >> >> >>2009/12/23 Hitoshi Ozawa <htshoz...@gmail. com> >> >> >> >>>So Steve, you're designing all your services these way. >>> >>>>>>H.Ozawa >>> >>>2009/12/23 Steve Jones <jones.steveg@ gmail.com> >>> >>> >>>>I can't see why not, although I'd reword it to be >>>> >>>> >>>>In order to ship the carton a valid set of legal >>>>constraints, written in French, must be agreed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Take Air Traffic Control, there are two official global >>>>languages for ATC there is English (used in 99% of the world) and there >>>>is French (guess where that is used) but they are both official >>>>languages at the service description level. Now some people can >>>>constrain their description to say "we only accept English" but this is >>>>still at the service description level as an individual contract (with >>>>a plane) has not yet been entered into. >>>> >>>> >>>>Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>2009/12/22 Hitoshi Ozawa <htshoz...@gmail. com> >>>> >>>> >>>>>We're talking about service description. Is it alright >>>>>to have "ship the carton with a valid set of legal constraints in >>>>>French"? >>>>> >>>>>H.Ozawa >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>2009/12/23 Steve Jones <jones.steveg@ gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I can't see why a contract of send invoice via SOAP >>>>>>would be a problem with the description being "send invoice", why would >>>>>>it be a problem? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I think we are in danger of disappearing into semantic >>>>>>holes. I could argue that if the objective (service description) was >>>>>>to woo a lady then the choice of the language (service contract) could >>>>>>be either English or French. In French we could take the Cyrano de >>>>>>Bergerac approach while in English we could fall back on the Bard of >>>>>>Avon. Here the language is the piece that seals the deal and is linked >>>>>>to the specific consumer of the service, in other words the language >>>>>>chosen (the contract) is linked to the specific engagement between the >>>>>>producer and consumer. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Steve >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>2009/12/22 Hitoshi Ozawa <htshoz...@gmail. com> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi Steve, >>>>>>>So are you implying "send invoice using SOAP" is >>>>>>>alright? >>>>>>>If you are, I sure would like to see the system with >>>>>>>such a design. :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>French and English are languages people use to rely >>>>>>>concepts. British law is a concept. Concepts described in the British >>>>>>>law does not (should not) change whether it's written in English or in >>>>>>>French. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>H.Ozawa >>>>>>> >>>>>>>2009/12/21 Steve Jones <jones.steveg@ gmail.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I actually think that French and English is fine. >>>>>>>> It is like having a shipping contract, there are a huge number of >>>>>>>>different legal jurisdictions that you could potentially use to ship >>>>>>>>the product from A to B (the description) but when you formalise the >>>>>>>>contract you pick a single legal country as your escalation point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So in other words the description of A to B just >>>>>>>>says "ship the carton with a valid set of legal constraints" while the >>>>>>>>contract says "ship the carton with British Law as the legal framework" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Steve >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2009/12/19 Hitoshi Ozawa <htshoz...@gmail. com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Andrew, >>>>>>>>>I think you're beginning to understand the >>>>>>>>>concept, but your example is missing the point. >>>>>>>>>Your analogy with French and English is >>>>>>>>>inappropriate unless you're thinking of a translation service. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Service description describes the semantic >>>>>>>>>capabilities of the service while service contract describes the set of >>>>>>>>>rules used in an instance of an interaction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>H.Ozawa >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>2009/12/18 Andrew Herbst <herbst_andrew@ yahoo.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Greetings: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Another question from an SOA neophyte. >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for responding to my earlier >>>>>>>>>>questions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>So, roughly speaking, a service >>>>>>>>>>description is like me announcing to the world: “I can >>>>>>>>>>interact in French or in English”, whereas, a service contract >>>>>>>>>>is like me agreeing to speak French with a specific other person in >>>>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>>>context of some very specific interaction. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I realize this is a very basic question, >>>>>>>>>>and it may well not really be the aim of this group to deal with such >>>>>>>>>>basic things. I will therefore take no offence if no one >>>>>>>>>>addresses this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Andrew Herbst >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
