Content deleted Content added
→top: rm orphan notice |
→Rationale: "recomposable" is not a word in any dictionary. |
||
Line 2:
==Rationale==
Services developed by different project teams could be based on different communication mechanisms. As a result, a service inventory may end up having different sets of services, each conforming to a different set of protocols. When it comes to reusing services having different communication protocols, some sort of communication bridging mechanism is required. For example, services developed using [[Java Message Service|JMS]] messaging protocol are incompatible with services using [[.NET Remoting]], so in order to make use of these two types of services, some [[middleware]] technology needs to be in place that bridges the communication protocol disparity. Apart from incurring extra cost, the use of such a bridging technology adds [[Latency (engineering)|latency]] and communication overhead. This makes the
In order to design a service inventory where all services are interoperable with each other so that they can be composed into different solutions, the application of the Canonical Protocol pattern dictates standardizing the communication protocols used by the services. When all services are using the same communication protocol, the requirement for a bridging technology is eliminated and the communication between services is more streamlined.<ref name='SODI'>Mauro. et al. [http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2010.336 Service Oriented Device Integration - An Analysis of SOA Design Patterns.] [Online], pp.1-10, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2010. Date accessed: 30 April 2010. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100328211319/http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2010.336 |date=March 28, 2010 }}</ref>
| |||