[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ecf-dev] Intents in ECF
- From: Fabio souza <fabio.nogueira.souza@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:59:33 -0300
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=d4Qp3icAs0NlSJvCLGCY5MgJtDtt66FWVQoh5Osjdh1A/bdySTXv/Q44GuQHD246gi f7asSPRyQdTvCeWkD3z4V9NUgFdpLQQucz3z1XmQVP5qnJegMlkmWu58LzbtAm9MI1tJ +IZNRaiwkpL2g+F/9uOeUiXGoXwMphauiiO5k=
Ok, I understand. Thank you very much!
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The intents are used on both sides (the service host and consumer). It does make sense...IMHO...to have the intents essentially be constraints on the provider...and the provider (and the communication protocol used by the provider) must satisfy those constraints on both sides of the communication (for many/most intents).
On 1/11/2011 6:45 AM, Fabio souza wrote:
Thank you, very much for your answer. Can I make a few more questions? As far as I understood, the intents are applied on both sides, as they MUST be suported by the providers on both sides in order to enable consumer/provider communication, is this right? What about an intent like transaction, for example? Can a service use such intent just to say that it support transaction? In this case, what kind of support is expected from the client side? Does it make sense to have an intent like log to ask the provider on the server side to log requests (like in cxf)? In that case, does it make sense to require that the provider on the client side support log too?
ECF's implementation uses the intents to match a host provider as I described...and then the intents are communicated (via discovery) to the consumer side...so that they can be used to match a consumer provider. In this way, both sides satisfy the constraints defined by the intents.