1 / 23

Realisation of SOA using Web Services Advanced WS

Realisation of SOA using Web Services Advanced WS. Adomas Svirskas Vilnius University December 2005. Agenda. WS-* Specifications Advanced WS Architecture WS Taxonomy. Why the WS core is not enough?. We have got SOAP, WSDL, UDDI So we can develop, publish, discover, invoke Web Services

pete
Download Presentation

Realisation of SOA using Web Services Advanced WS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Realisation of SOAusing Web ServicesAdvanced WS Adomas Svirskas Vilnius University December 2005

  2. Agenda • WS-* Specifications • Advanced WS Architecture • WS Taxonomy

  3. Why the WS core is not enough? • We have got SOAP, WSDL, UDDI • So we can develop, publish, discover, invoke Web Services • But... this is about application integration • While the business world needs business process integration • Thus we need composable, orchestrated, transactable, secure Web Services

  4. Current State of WS [1] • The Web Services stack of standards has grown rapidly in the last three years from its original form as SOAP, WSDL and UDDI specifications • With it, the Web is moving towards being an open distributed computing platform with which we can build Service Oriented Architectures and Composite Applications

  5. The Reality - WS-Nonexistent Standards [2] • The numerous WS specifications introduced by various parties over the past few years show that there's a clear desire to fill out the WS architecture stack • Unfortunately, converting those specifications into actual industry standards is elusive • WS-This and WS-That • The specifications (collectively known as WS-*) are numerous and daunting. • A coalition of developers and architects from BEA Systems, IBM, and Microsoft authored most of them, though different specifications also include contributions from several other smaller companies. • Because the same author companies didn't write all the specifications, at least two different lists exist.

  6. The Reality - WS-Nonexistent Standards [2] • One can find complete lists of the WS-* specifications at: • http://msdn.microsoft.com/Webservices/understanding/specs • http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/standards/ • http://dev2dev.bea.com/webservices/standards.html • Natural questions: • How do these specifications fit together? • Are they all really necessary? • If they are necessary, how and when will they become actual standards?

  7. WS-* • These lists from Microsoft, IBM and BEA (there are more lists) cover pretty much every topic imaginable: • WS-Addressing • WS-Attachments • WS-BusinessActivity • WS-Coordination • WS-Discovery • WS-Enumeration • WS-Eventing • WS-Federation • WS-Inspection • WS-Manageability • WS-MetadataExchange • WS-Notification • WS-PolicyFramework • WS-Provisioning • WS-ReliableMessaging • WS-Resource • WS-Security • WS-Topics • WS-Transactions • WS-Transfer • Moreover, some areas have two, three, or more specifications devoted to them • There is a need for taxonomy of WS-* specs

  8. Current State of WS [1] • Within Web-based platform, software agents may • Exchange messages • Provide or consume services • Perform cooperatively units of work • Message exchanges and operation invocations may be part of a unit of work performed by software agents. • Instances of this unit of work have a precise lifecycle and often have a context. • Service compositions represent a particular type of unit of work.

  9. Messages, Services, UoW [1] J-J Dubray, SAP Blog http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/wlg/2261

  10. Web Services Taxonomy [1] • All standards and (the proposed specs) developed as part of the Web Services stack fall in one of these three categories • At the message exchange level, the message exchange protocol (SOAP) is layered on top of transport and syntax specifications. This protocol can be composed with other specifications for reliable and/or secure message exchanges • The WS-Addressing specification standardizes addressing mechanisms for the protocol

  11. WS-* Standards Architecture [1] J-J Dubray, SAP Blog http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/wlg/2261

  12. WS-* Standards Architecture (W3C) Web Services Architecture, W3C, http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/#technology

  13. WS-* Standards Architecture – M$ http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/webservices/understanding/specs/default.aspx

  14. WS-* Standards Architecture - IBM http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/standards/

  15. Web Services Taxonomy [1] • At the service level, the service definition specification (WSDL) can be composed with other specifications to add the concepts of Event and Resource • A directory (UDDI) may be used to store, search and retrieve service definitions.

  16. WS Taxonomy – UoW [1] • WS- RemotePortlets specification provides a service interface to user activities. • The foundation of the unit of work level is composed of Context, Lifecycle and optionally Coordination services for a particular type of unit of work. • The most basic type is a transaction: WS-AtomicTransaction (WS-AT), WS-Business Activity (WS-BA). • WS-BPEL provides more sophisticated capabilities and can be used to specify service compositions.

  17. WS Choreography • Finally, WS-CDL has the capability to describe any message exchanges performed by an arbitrary number of participants • WS-CDL is a choreography language as opposed to WS-BPEL which is an orchestration language. WS-BPEL is executable, WS-CDL is not. • In a choreography, it is the mere exchange of messages by agents which advances the state of the choreography.

  18. WS Choreography • The decision process by which an agent decides to send a message is hidden from the choreography definition. • In an orchestration, an engine decides what to do next when it receives or sends a message, based on an orchestration definition. • A choreography definition may be used by each participant to configure the validation of the current message exchange instead of hard coding it.

  19. WS Choreography http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10/#Purpose-of-WS-CDL

  20. WS-* Standards Architecture • The architecture is complemented by security (WS-Security, SAML ,…), management (WS-DM) and metadata (WS-Policy) specifications • Overall, these specifications have enabled the web to become a powerful distributed computing platform

  21. Service Component Architecture (SCA) • A major news as of 30 November: SAP, IBM, BEA, Oracle, IONA, Sybase, Siebel an others have announced the development of a new component model specifically designed for building service oriented architectures - SCA • SCA is a new component model based on the principles of Service Oriented Architecture • middleware and programming language neutral • offers a superior application model to support "Rich Clients" and construct RIAs (Rich Internet Applications) • http://dev2dev.bea.com/pub/a/2005/11/sca.html

  22. Service Component Architecture (SCA) • SCA is also an assembly mechanism, based on the injection of dependency pattern (as in Spring framework) to create Modules from Components and Systems and Subsystems from Modules. • A module is composed of service components which run in the same process. • As such, SCA provides the means to compose assets which have been implemented using a variety of technologies as services can be accessed and reused in a uniform manner • Any component developed with SCA should be able to participate in a system with any other SCA component, regardless of its implementation language

  23. References • [1] Dubray, J-J, SAP Blog 2005. Taxonomy and Architecture of Web Service Standards, http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/wlg/2261 • [2] Vinoski, S. WS-Nonexistent Standards. IEEE's Internet Computing, November 2004. http://www.iona.com/hyplan/vinoski/pdfs/IEEE-WS-NonexistentStandards.pdf • [3] Ferguson, D. et al. Secure, Reliable, Transacted Web Services: Architecture and Composition, 2003. http://www-306.ibm.com/software/solutions/webservices/pdf/SecureReliableTransactedWSAction.pdf • Papazoglou, M., Dubray, J-J. A Survey of Web service technologies. 2004, http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/archive/00000586/

More Related