Roles for Reliability - (was RE: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing?)

There is a significant issue around the roles that must
be performed to provide predictable level of assurance.

What is the boundry between infrastructure and application
and thier roles in RM? Does there need to be a new level,
sometimes refered to extended infrastructure to handle 
these roles?

Perhaps if we just concentrate on the roles, and defer who
performs them until later, we can start to make progress.

DaveH


-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 8:53 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? (was RE: Agenda for
5 December WSA telcon)





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Hollander [mailto:dmh@contivo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:21 AM
> To: w3c-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Agenda for 5 December WSA telcon
> 

> I am inclined to support working on "reliable messaging",
> I think it is an imporant next step in wEB sERVICES 
> (anyone want to sponsor that capitialization???)
> 
> I think the single word "reliable" is just to ambiguous.

Yup. This is another one of those densely interconnected
clusters of issues (sortof like "choreography"): "Asynchrony"
is associated with it (without a reliable substrate, senders
and receivers can talk "out of band" to ensure that messages
were received), it's tangled up with Coordination and Transactions
because Web service invocations can fail for all sorts of reasons
besides messages not being delivered,  and we are sure to hear 
from the RESTifarians that the whole idea of supporting reliability
in the infrastructure rather than the application is counter 
to the One True Web Architecture. 

Can we just focus on "reliable messaging" (AFAIK, a guarantee that
a SOAP message will arrive either 0 or 1 times at its destination,
and the sender will be unambiguously informed which it was), or
is the larger architectural question of "reliability" something 
we can dig into?

So, consider this topic officially open for public discussion!

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 11:43:42 UTC