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

RE: Proposed text on 'SOA' (resend)

From: Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 16:58:34 -0400
To: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, '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: <NFBBLCDGGLCHCHFEJFIGKELICNAA.katia@cs.cmu.edu>

+1
 --Katia

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Martin Chapman
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 3:09 PM
To: 'Savas Parastatidis'; 'He, Hao'
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org; 'Jim Webber'
Subject: RE: Proposed text on 'SOA' (resend)



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.

Martin.


> -----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)
>
>
<snip>
>
> 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 16:59:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:22 GMT