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

RE: Proposed text on 'SOA' (resend)

From: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:09:18 -0700
To: "'Savas Parastatidis'" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, "'He, Hao'" <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>, "'Jim Webber'" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>
Message-ID: <00ea01c37705$debc9ab0$1faf2382@us.oracle.com>

I mostly agree about your comment below, but I think there is missing one
piece that allows "statefulness" to be layered on top.
In a pure "stateless model"  I (mostly) don't care which web service process
my request. But a necessry precursor to the stateful 
models is the ability to talk to the "same"  web service over as series of
interactions. Thus an identity model is required.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Savas Parastatidis
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 11:37 AM
> To: He, Hao
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org; Jim Webber
> Subject: RE: Proposed text on 'SOA' (resend)
> Regarding statefulness/stateless...
> I personally see services as stateless entities. A service 
> should be defined with stateleness as a default behaviour. By 
> statelness I mean that there is nothing in the definition of 
> a service that allows it to correlate messages it receives or 
> sends. Statefulness is achieved through additional message 
> correlation mechanisms. 
> If a token was to be sent as part of the message, that 
> doesn't mean that the service is stateful. Instead, an 
> application-specific mechanism has been employed to build 
> stateful interactions on top of a stateless architecture 
> (SOA). There is something to be said about a community-agreed 
> mechanism for achieving this but the fact still remains that 
> the semantics of a service do not need to change. So, I agree 
> with Bill's comment that this group should provide guidance 
> on how stateful interactions should be achieved in the same 
> manner that the group is talking about transactions, 
> orchestration, etc. However, that does not mean that anything 
> regarding stateful interactions should appear in the 
> explanation of SOA and the definition of a service.
> Just my 2c.
> Regards,
> --
> Savas Parastatidis
> http://savas.parastatidis.name
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 15:18:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:08 UTC