Re: [Bodington-developers] tetra & IMS TI

[Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...>]

First thing that struck me was that TIR/Proxy is application level  
service stubs (as opposed to normal class level) turning the whole  
thing into an Eclipse-type Rich Server Platform!

It seems to have taken the concept of RCP and jacked it up into the  
realms of inter-server comms.

It's really web services on steroids. So much so that it's top heavy  
and needs a heavyweight anchor in the "client" application (the proxy).

Whatever happened to AJAX for remote, lightweight UI stuff with  
normal WS data channels?

Also, I'd like to see federated authn/authz mentioned before I dipped  
any digits in the water.

Alistair

On 5 May 2006, at 12:29, Brian Peter Clark wrote:

> I have to disagree here.  The IMS TI is flawed in concept (unless  
> you really
> morph the concept).  WSDL Web services are the result of a long  
> painful
> process towards interoperability.  They are not perfect, but  
> they're the best that
> we've got.  Anything you place in the space between consumer and  
> producer
> must not diminish the interoperability. This is what the TIR would  
> do by bringing
> in the requirement to be involved in extra Web service conversations.
>
> (It would also introduce loads of extra tiresome work for developers.)
>
> My next point is that all the aims of TIR can be carried out from  
> the WSDL.
> There will still be a lot of out of band stuff to sort out with  
> anything but the
> simplest services - but sort this out another way - another deployment
> descriptor (the WSDL is a dd, too) won't supply the answers
>
> Space on the client side is precious.
> Tracking and logging projects might want a widget on the client side.
> Reliable messagers might want one.
> Security might want one.  Transport adapters might want one.  Data  
> transformers might.
> So rather than have a raft of client-side widgets building up,
> best to have a widget that is a configurable multi-tasker.
> This is essentially what JBI does - it's a beautiful spec and  
> almost every JISC
> Web service project should be using it, I respectfully suggest.
>
> The JBI container reminds me of the Borg Collective.  Cut orff from  
> the Hive, a
> Borg still has functionality, but plug in to the Collective and  
> that's where the real
> power lies.
>
> The Borg entry in the Wikipedia is interesting:
>
> "..their relentless pursuit of what they want to {HYPERLINK "/wiki/ 
> Assimilation_%28Star_Trek%29"}assimilate, their rapid {HYPERLINK "/ 
> wiki/Adaptation"}adaptability
> to almost any defense, and their ability to continue functioning  
> after what may
> seem a devastating or even fatal blow seemingly unaffected."
>
> Change this just a bit and you have the qualities of an enterprise  
> service bus -
> assimilation of diverse applications, adaptable interfaces, and  
> limited self-
> healing properties.  The ESB as Hive. The JBI containers as  
> drones.  The
> Queen might be JMX (or the service registry).
>
> So, having JBI containers attached to service nodes is a good  
> starting point for
> ultimately creating a management structure using JMX which would allow
> remote configuration of the Collective, er.. bus.
>
> This might seem flippant, but there is a strong analogy present.
>
> Regards,
>
> Locutus of Bus
>
>
>
>  On 5 May 2006, at 08:49, Adam Marshall wrote:
>>
>>> Bodington would certainly like to be able to include Sakai tools,
>>> so yes,
>>> that does sound interesting.
>>>
>>> Was it your intention to use IMS TI as a framework?
>>>
>>
>> No! Our view of IMS TI is that the best thing about it is that it
>> exists.
>>
>> By that I mean that the problem of how to get portability of an
>> _application_ rather than content between learning management systems
>> is being addressed by open-source and commercial suppliers. The
>> version 1.0 does very little that is useful, but it is a start. With
>> it we will be able to test the concept that a specialised application
>> we may develop for teaching modern language say, can be taken by a
>> Bodington University or a Blackboard University or a Moodle
>> University or a WebCT University and be run without major integration
>> issues.
>>
>> If this turns out to be something people want to do a lot, we expect
>> a lot of development of the specification to make it more useful. I
>> would almost call it a research prototype of a spec.
>>
>> Another issue is that we don't know how engaged Blackboard will be
>> now they have merged with WebCT. They may take the view that  
>> Chalkbox/
>> PowerLinks now has critical mass not to need interoperability with
>> other (competitor) solutions.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services,  
>> security?
>> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your  
>> job easier
>> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache  
>> Geronimo
>> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? 
>> cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bodington-developers mailing list
>> Bod...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers
>>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services,  
> security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your  
> job easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache  
> Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? 
> cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> Bodington-developers mailing list
> Bod...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers