- From: <Joachim.Peer@unisg.ch>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:44:37 +0200
- To: Monika Solanki <monika@dmu.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
here my 2 cents > The BPEL4WS specifies > these and other control constructs as "Activity". So in this context > is a "service" at a higher level of abstraction then an "Activity" > or do they have equivalent semantics. my take on it is as follows: - a service consists of a collection of (probably related) operations - BPEL constructs like "invoke" or "receive" refer to such *operations* (not to the service as a whole) BTW, the discussion of service granularity reminds me on similar discussions in the J2EE world, where Enterprise Java Beans had to be designed more coarsely grained than usual Java beans, in order to reduce costs of network traffic (=> leading to Façade design pattern, Value Object pattern, Local interfaces in EJB 2.0, etc.). A fine grained EJB is still a valid EJB, even if not a very well designed one. I would assume the same applies to services. However i have never seen a formal treatment of the topic, so it would be indeed interesting to learn more about the issue. regards, Joachim
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2004 12:44:48 UTC