W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2003

RE: WSA architectural concepts and relationsihips related to WS, SOA , and the Web

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 16:24:04 -0700
To: "'Katia Sycara'" <katia@cs.cmu.edu>, "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007301c31426$95f9ba70$b20ba8c0@beasys.com>

I've run into this problem many times.  Coarse-grained is a practice not a
constraint.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Katia Sycara
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 3:23 PM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: WSA architectural concepts and relationsihips related to
> WS, SOA , and the Web
>
>
>
> Mike,
>  +1
> Small nit-pick: I think you want to say "coarse-grained" rather than
> "course-grained"
>  --Katia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 5:47 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: WSA architectural concepts and relationsihips related to
> WS, SOA , and the Web
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> > [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 4:07 PM
> > To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: WSA architectural concepts and relationsihips
> related to
> > WS, SOA , and the Web
> >
>
> > The "service" entry raises a lot of questions in my mind,
> > however.  Why
> > did you find it necessary to use the term "course-grained" when you
> > defined service?  "Course-grained" on what scale?
>
> In retrospect, that's probably more best practice for a
> useful service than
> a definition of SERVICE.  A service (any sort) has got to do
> enough work to
> justify the overhead of the remote invocation.  I'm happy to
> remove that.
>
> > Well defined
> > "operation" or "interface"?  Is there a meaningful
> > distinction there and
> > if so why did you use "operation"?
>
> It is hard to define "service" without using the term "serve"
> or "service."
> The best I can do is to say that a service *does* something;
> "performs an
> operation"  sees like a better phrase than "does something" :-)
>
> An interface specifies how one requests the service to perform that
> operation / do something.  Is that a reasonable distinction?
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 19:22:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:18 GMT