There can be public services much lower down, it was just the case that here the Level 2 service was deliberately hidden from everyone else (the only allowed invocation was to/from the manager service).
So Level 2 services can access Level 2 services from other Level 1 areas, but you can also specify those Level 2 services which are internal to a Level 1 service and only for that Level 1 service to invoke. An example of this is credit card payment and fraud detection. You could have 2 services called CCPay and FraudDetect and expect users to do the smart thing, or you could have a Level 1 service of "Payment" which contains CCPay and FraudDetect and which is responsible for ensuring a low fraud rate. External services can only use the Payment service directly. Steve 2009/1/30 Dennis Djenfer <[email protected]>: > Steve, > > Is all your public services on Level 1, or is there public services also on > Level 2? Another way to formulate the same question: Is all Level 2 services > contained by a Level 1 service or are Level 2 services directly accessible > from other Level 1 services? > > // Dennis Djenfer > > > Steve Jones wrote: > > Batch processing itself (IMO) isn't a service that is just the > technical implementation. > > As an example I did a system in 2000 where there were two batch > interactions, one was for the customer information the other for the > product information, we received these each night from the mainframe > and updated the local system. Now the main service was > CustomerManagement but "inside" this service (i.e. Customer Management > was at Level 1) there was another service called > CustomerSubmissionService which was only accessible to Customer > Management and could only access customer management. This Submission > Service was the batch processing engine which received the, rather > large, update files over MQ and then did the database update. > > Implementation wise we used MQ round-robin for failover for resilience > and a tiny bit of load-balancing. > > So batch processing wasn't a service it was the _implementation_ of a > business service (CustomerSubmission) which from a domain perspective > was wholly contained within an overall business service > (CustomerManagement). This meant the folks dealing with customer had > responsibility for all of customer work (including the batch job). > > The same model was used for Product. > > Steve > > > > > 2009/1/29 Rob Eamon <[email protected]>: > > > What are people's thoughts about batch processing being > an "application frontend" and thus not a service but a service > consumer? > > Steve, at what level do you position batch processing? Where on a BA > diagram would "batch process" be depicted? > > Is "batch processing" a service in and of itself or is it an > attribute/characteristic of a 'proper' business service? For example, > assuming "Billing Service" is one of the identified top-level > services, would batching be just another operation/interface next to > the "one-off bill" operation? > > -Rob > > --- In [email protected], Steve Jones > > <jones.ste...@...> wrote: > > > Couldn't agree more that batch processing can be better handled as a > service, its one of the "odd" things that vendors seemed to exclude > because it wasn't in their product set (or worse claim an old ETL as > SOA just to get some more license sales). > > Steve > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > ________________________________ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1924 - Release Date: 1/29/2009 > 5:57 PM > > > >
