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: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 19:49:23 -0400
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <002e01c3142a$1f713280$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>

I think Dave means coarse-grained exchanges over wide area
networks is a best practice in distributed systems design, but it's
the exchange that's the practice.  Technically, if you can pin down
the meaning of "coarse-grained", it's a constraint alright.  It doesn't
admit fine-grained.  That would be the test.

Walden

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
To: "'Katia Sycara'" <katia@cs.cmu.edu>; "'Champion, Mike'"
<Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>; <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 7:24 PM
Subject: RE: WSA architectural concepts and relationsihips related to WS,
SOA , and the Web


>
> 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 19:49:57 GMT

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