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 18:46:46 UTC