Patterns of Interaction
An operation of a service can be decomposed to a set of messages exchanged between a service provider and consumer and form a pattern of interaction. Analysis of the services given in reference shows that there are a limited number of these patterns of interaction that can be applied to all currently identified services. Standardising a pattern of interaction, which defines the sequence of messages passed between consumer and provider, makes it possible to define a generic template for an operation of a service. The MAL defines this limited set of generic interaction patterns (templates) that must be used by services defined in the MO service framework. Each operation of a service is defined in terms of one of the MAL interaction patterns. By defining a pattern and stating that a given operation is an example of that pattern, the operation definition can focus on the specifics of that operation and rely on the standard pattern to facilitate this. For example, an operation ‘doFoo’ may be defined that is an example of a pattern called ‘SUBMIT’. This operation has two parts, the pattern of messages that are exchanged (the ‘SUBMIT’ pattern) and the meaning of those messages and what ‘doFoo’ does. By defining the pattern as a standard (‘SUBMIT’) the service specification that defines ‘doFoo’ only need define the meaning of the messages and what the operation does. The MAL defines this set of patterns.
Read more about this topic: Message Abstraction Layer
Famous quotes containing the words patterns of, patterns and/or interaction:
“Teasing is universal. Anthropologists have found the same fundamental patterns of teasing among New Zealand aborigine children and inner-city kids on the playgrounds of Philadelphia.”
—Lawrence Kutner (20th century)
“For the man who should loose me is dead,
Fighting with the Duke in Flanders,
In a pattern called a war.
Christ! What are patterns for?”
—Amy Lowell (1874–1925)
“Our rural village life was a purifying, uplifting influence that fortified us against the later impacts of urbanization; Church and State, because they were separated and friendly, had spiritual and ethical standards that were mutually enriching; freedom and discipline, individualism and collectivity, nature and nurture in their interaction promised an ever stronger democracy. I have no illusions that those simpler, happier days can be resurrected.”
—Agnes E. Meyer (1887–1970)