RE: service / agent terminology

Big +1

arkin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Scott Vorthmann
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:23 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: service / agent terminology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm somewhat concerned about the direction of today's discussion 
> of terminology.
> 
> I agree with David B that there's a lot of baggage around 
> "service" as a provider.  However, that baggage is not imposed by 
> abstract WSDL... rather it accrues by the common usage of 
> request-reply as the prevalent operation signature.  I'd like to 
> lose the baggage.
> 
> WSDL got many things "right", in my view, and the inclusion of 
> "out" and "out-in" operation signatures is one of them.  This 
> lets me define an entity that has a clear boundary of 
> identifiable, typed communication endpoints... I'd like to call 
> that entity a service, even if its only interaction with the 
> outside world is periodic publishing of time and temp (on an 
> appropriate transport).
> 
> Providing a service need not imply reactive communication... 
> services can be proactive as well.  This means that "provider" 
> need not imply "responder".
> 
> HTTP tunnel-vision has made a similar discussion on the 
> Description group somewhat long and animated, apparently.  I 
> think we have a great opportunity to define an architecture that 
> extends beyond existing Web transport protocols to communation 
> protocols in general.  (Will I now be skewered by REST 
> proponents?)  I hope our charter does not preclude that.
> 
> Scott
> -- 
> Scott Vorthmann                    mailto:[email protected]
> Senior Architect                     mailto:[email protected]
>                                               office: 919 969 6513
> TIBCO Extensibility                  mobile: 919 593 2349
> TIBCO Software, Inc.               http://www.tibco.com