Home » Archived » Service Oriented Architecture Tools Platform (STP) » JBI instead of SCA Runtime
| JBI instead of SCA Runtime [message #374828] |
Tue, 02 September 2008 09:25  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: michael.gebhart.googlemail.com
Hi,
I've just read the sample scenario for the intermediate model and I am
wondering, why you chose a JBI runtime instead of the SCA runtime.
When adding bindings to the SCA diagram and some implementation for the
components I get everything I need to run the services. If the SCA
runtime is not enough for this, why does SCA contain such features like
binding, implementation etc.?
Maybe you can help me :)
Greetings
Michael
|
|
| |
| Re: JBI instead of SCA Runtime [message #619511 is a reply to message #374828] |
Tue, 09 September 2008 16:56  |
 Adrian Mos
Messages: 20
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi Mike,
Just to follow up on what Andrea replied on this topic, you can, depending
on your needs, see SCA as a purely architectural specification space. In
this case, and where you have existing JBI infrastructure of course, you
can choose to generate further JBI artefacts but as Andrea said this is
just an example, as other infrastructure can be used just as well. Of
course you could have a complete SCA runtime, in which case you might be
interested in directly specifying / generating the appropriate SCA
artefacts. And in yet another scenario, you could have a hybrid SCA / JBI
approach, such as the one defined by the SCOrWare project:
http://www.scorware.org/projects/en
I would like to point out that STP-IM does not enforce SOA development
practices, not does mandate specific runtime configurations. It is
primarily a practical approach to bridge different editors and platforms
by having a common"bridge-like" approach for holding useful SOA elements
together when moving between such editors / platforms.
Hope this helps,
cheers,
Adrian.
Michael Gebhart wrote:
> Hi,
> I've just read the sample scenario for the intermediate model and I am
> wondering, why you chose a JBI runtime instead of the SCA runtime.
> When adding bindings to the SCA diagram and some implementation for the
> components I get everything I need to run the services. If the SCA
> runtime is not enough for this, why does SCA contain such features like
> binding, implementation etc.?
> Maybe you can help me :)
> Greetings
> Michael
|
|
|
| Re: JBI instead of SCA Runtime [message #619533 is a reply to message #619511] |
Fri, 12 September 2008 08:27 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: michael.gebhart.googlemail.com
Hi Adrian,
thanks for your answer. This is very useful for me. I am just reading
your paper "Multi-Layer Perspectives and Spaces in SOA". This gives a
lot of additional information.
Greetings
Michael
> Hi Mike,
>
> Just to follow up on what Andrea replied on this topic, you can,
> depending on your needs, see SCA as a purely architectural specification
> space. In this case, and where you have existing JBI infrastructure of
> course, you can choose to generate further JBI artefacts but as Andrea
> said this is just an example, as other infrastructure can be used just
> as well. Of course you could have a complete SCA runtime, in which case
> you might be interested in directly specifying / generating the
> appropriate SCA artefacts. And in yet another scenario, you could have a
> hybrid SCA / JBI approach, such as the one defined by the SCOrWare
> project: http://www.scorware.org/projects/en
>
> I would like to point out that STP-IM does not enforce SOA development
> practices, not does mandate specific runtime configurations. It is
> primarily a practical approach to bridge different editors and platforms
> by having a common"bridge-like" approach for holding useful SOA elements
> together when moving between such editors / platforms.
>
> Hope this helps,
> cheers,
> Adrian.
>
> Michael Gebhart wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>
>> I've just read the sample scenario for the intermediate model and I am
>> wondering, why you chose a JBI runtime instead of the SCA runtime.
>
>> When adding bindings to the SCA diagram and some implementation for
>> the components I get everything I need to run the services. If the SCA
>> runtime is not enough for this, why does SCA contain such features
>> like binding, implementation etc.?
>
>> Maybe you can help me :)
>
>> Greetings
>
>> Michael
>
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Dec 14 01:11:21 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04176 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
