<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Waiting for events (in Cloud APIs)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1284/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1284</link>
	<description>William Vambenepe&#039;s stage</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:33:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: andy.edmonds.be &#8250; links for 2010-03-01</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1284#comment-773</link>
		<dc:creator>andy.edmonds.be &#8250; links for 2010-03-01</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:04:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1284#comment-773</guid>
		<description>[...] William Vambenepe — Waiting for events (in Cloud APIs) (tags: cloud management messaging events) [...] </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] William Vambenepe — Waiting for events (in Cloud APIs) (tags: cloud management messaging events) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Using real-time web software and technology to distribute events &#124; Phil Leggetter - Software Consultant</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1284#comment-772</link>
		<dc:creator>Using real-time web software and technology to distribute events &#124; Phil Leggetter - Software Consultant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:08:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1284#comment-772</guid>
		<description>[...] just come across William Vambenepe&#8217;s blog and an article called &#8220;Waiting for events (in Cloud APIs)&#8220; where he discusses how an event system is missing from cloud vendor [...] </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] just come across William Vambenepe&#8217;s blog and an article called &#8220;Waiting for events (in Cloud APIs)&#8220; where he discusses how an event system is missing from cloud vendor [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Lindsay</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1284#comment-771</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Lindsay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:57:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1284#comment-771</guid>
		<description>Although it&#039;s not a spec and perhaps doesn&#039;t satisfy all your requirements, I strongly believe the answer is based on the idea of webhooks. I&#039;m certainly not a fan of the complexity and lack of adoption power of WS-*, and I believe an organic standard/convention can emerge from the existing pattern people are using today to do this sort of stuff. Although it&#039;s not general enough, there is PubSubHubbub. There are also some very well designed APIs for webhook events (most recently, FreshBooks). There are also best practices to address many of the concerns you have.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although it&#8217;s not a spec and perhaps doesn&#8217;t satisfy all your requirements, I strongly believe the answer is based on the idea of webhooks. I&#8217;m certainly not a fan of the complexity and lack of adoption power of WS-*, and I believe an organic standard/convention can emerge from the existing pattern people are using today to do this sort of stuff. Although it&#8217;s not general enough, there is PubSubHubbub. There are also some very well designed APIs for webhook events (most recently, FreshBooks). There are also best practices to address many of the concerns you have.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William Vambenepe &#8212; Square peg, REST hole</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1284#comment-770</link>
		<dc:creator>William Vambenepe &#8212; Square peg, REST hole</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:46:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1284#comment-770</guid>
		<description>[...] contort ourselves. It doesn&#8217;t mean that the problems above go away. Events, for example, are challenging to support even outside of any REST constraint. It just means we&#8217;re not tying one hand behind our [...] </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] contort ourselves. It doesn&#8217;t mean that the problems above go away. Events, for example, are challenging to support even outside of any REST constraint. It just means we&#8217;re not tying one hand behind our [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William (@vambenepe on Twitter)</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1284#comment-769</link>
		<dc:creator>William (@vambenepe on Twitter)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:07:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1284#comment-769</guid>
		<description>I like where you are going Randy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like where you are going Randy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Randy Bias</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1284#comment-768</link>
		<dc:creator>Randy Bias</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:28:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1284#comment-768</guid>
		<description>IMHO, this gets easier if you assume the event system is about state synchronization. If that is the primary use case then you spend most of your time solving the issue of ensuring that a cloud consumer&#039;s subset of the overall cloud state is correct or, at least, knowing when it is not in sync and responding in kind. Then the consumer can operate against that local state replica relatively safely. It&#039;s very similar to the tricks you have to play in sychronizing the local state in a browser DOM to the backend it is talking to.

I could explain further but it would be a long blog post. We don&#039;t need a complex solution. We only need a simple distributed state sync protocol that uses asynchronous events and knows when it is disconnected or out of sync. Just like a browser UI.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IMHO, this gets easier if you assume the event system is about state synchronization. If that is the primary use case then you spend most of your time solving the issue of ensuring that a cloud consumer&#8217;s subset of the overall cloud state is correct or, at least, knowing when it is not in sync and responding in kind. Then the consumer can operate against that local state replica relatively safely. It&#8217;s very similar to the tricks you have to play in sychronizing the local state in a browser DOM to the backend it is talking to.</p>
<p>I could explain further but it would be a long blog post. We don&#8217;t need a complex solution. We only need a simple distributed state sync protocol that uses asynchronous events and knows when it is disconnected or out of sync. Just like a browser UI.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rodney Quillo</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1284#comment-767</link>
		<dc:creator>Rodney Quillo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:49:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1284#comment-767</guid>
		<description>But yes,I agree a &quot;minimal functional set&quot; would make a change. 

Not sure  in what stage of Events API Amazon AWS is working right now or if they really started working on those features requests. Definitely good to have these features also with other cloud operators and not only AWS.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But yes,I agree a &#8220;minimal functional set&#8221; would make a change. </p>
<p>Not sure  in what stage of Events API Amazon AWS is working right now or if they really started working on those features requests. Definitely good to have these features also with other cloud operators and not only AWS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scalability updates for Feb 18, 2010 &#124; Scalable web architectures</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1284#comment-766</link>
		<dc:creator>Scalability updates for Feb 18, 2010 &#124; Scalable web architectures</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 05:17:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1284#comment-766</guid>
		<description>[...] very good post about the need of event driven Cloud API model for monitoring. I think its a matter of time before this happens. Just like feed crawlers are embracing even [...] </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] very good post about the need of event driven Cloud API model for monitoring. I think its a matter of time before this happens. Just like feed crawlers are embracing even [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William (@vambenepe on Twitter)</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1284#comment-765</link>
		<dc:creator>William (@vambenepe on Twitter)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:24:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1284#comment-765</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re exactly right Fred. I didn&#039;t mean to imply that all the possible features I suggest above need to be implemented. In fact, I don&#039;t think they do. The minimal functional set that you have in mind is the &quot;sweetspot&quot; that allude to in the last paragraph.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re exactly right Fred. I didn&#8217;t mean to imply that all the possible features I suggest above need to be implemented. In fact, I don&#8217;t think they do. The minimal functional set that you have in mind is the &#8220;sweetspot&#8221; that allude to in the last paragraph.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fred carter</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1284#comment-764</link>
		<dc:creator>fred carter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:34:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1284#comment-764</guid>
		<description>I think that as is/was the case with the WS-Splat standards, we have a conflict between &quot;what we graybeards know will be necessary&quot; and &quot;making something simple enough to be adopted.&quot;  As I (non-exclusively) remarked then, one of the interesting issues w.r.t. WS-* was that, unlike most places, the standards were developed long before there were actual implementations that needed them.  That is, we were looking at management, events, etc., before there were really any active web services in dire need.

From the point of view of [platform] developers, this was good -- we wouldn&#039;t have to go redo everything.  However, from the point of view of web service developers, it was scary -- too many things with which to comply before you even got off the ground (and few tools to assist).

Much of this, I think, came about because &quot;web services&quot; were &quot;plain old services&quot; (CORBA, whatever) with a syntax -- so we all knew what would be necessary, and just built it in from the beginning (along with all the other things that had been missing -- see &#039;second system effect&#039;).

Although not terribly familiar with the Cloud world yet, I would hope that we learn from previous experience and allow the standards to have a relatively low cost of entry.  Just as was attempted in WS-Notification &amp; friends (I don&#039;t know how well it worked), it would be good to have &quot;simple&quot; events and then standard extensions that might allow for appropriate scaling of the performance as well as the feature set as time goes on (&amp; need develops).  While I don&#039;t mean to imply that there are lots of &quot;small clouds&quot;, it would be nice to define such a standard in an approachable means -- a relatively small, uncluttered, core set of features whose more feature-complete-yet-complex extensions can be implemented as time allows.

Put another way, while the issues in the blog-post are undeniably required &quot;in the fullness of time,&quot; is there some way to define a layered standard so that one can start without providing everything?

Just a thought...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that as is/was the case with the WS-Splat standards, we have a conflict between &#8220;what we graybeards know will be necessary&#8221; and &#8220;making something simple enough to be adopted.&#8221;  As I (non-exclusively) remarked then, one of the interesting issues w.r.t. WS-* was that, unlike most places, the standards were developed long before there were actual implementations that needed them.  That is, we were looking at management, events, etc., before there were really any active web services in dire need.</p>
<p>From the point of view of [platform] developers, this was good &#8212; we wouldn&#8217;t have to go redo everything.  However, from the point of view of web service developers, it was scary &#8212; too many things with which to comply before you even got off the ground (and few tools to assist).</p>
<p>Much of this, I think, came about because &#8220;web services&#8221; were &#8220;plain old services&#8221; (CORBA, whatever) with a syntax &#8212; so we all knew what would be necessary, and just built it in from the beginning (along with all the other things that had been missing &#8212; see &#8216;second system effect&#8217;).</p>
<p>Although not terribly familiar with the Cloud world yet, I would hope that we learn from previous experience and allow the standards to have a relatively low cost of entry.  Just as was attempted in WS-Notification &amp; friends (I don&#8217;t know how well it worked), it would be good to have &#8220;simple&#8221; events and then standard extensions that might allow for appropriate scaling of the performance as well as the feature set as time goes on (&amp; need develops).  While I don&#8217;t mean to imply that there are lots of &#8220;small clouds&#8221;, it would be nice to define such a standard in an approachable means &#8212; a relatively small, uncluttered, core set of features whose more feature-complete-yet-complex extensions can be implemented as time allows.</p>
<p>Put another way, while the issues in the blog-post are undeniably required &#8220;in the fullness of time,&#8221; is there some way to define a layered standard so that one can start without providing everything?</p>
<p>Just a thought&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Derik Pereira</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1284#comment-763</link>
		<dc:creator>Derik Pereira</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:44:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1284#comment-763</guid>
		<description>Yes, once all is said and done, operating clouds will require events and notifications etc via subscriptions. Thus; such standards, technology and processes will need to be in the clouds, be it IaaS, PaaS or SaaS. These will ensure processes such as incident, event, problem management etc are not ignored.

In general, I find that service management processes (as in the ITIL process framework and others) which includes service operation and others are somewhat of an after thought in the cloud. It seems the focus is on service transition or build (me a VM or something).

Whether such standards such as the WS-splat dealing with wisemen and wisdom can ever be reused is another more politically charged consideration.

Ultimately, business processes could span multiple clouds (be it public or private in-house) and non-cloud legacy things. Tying all the service management processes together could be a nightmare without such technology enablement.

Life was somewhat less automated before even SNMP and yet we still had events and management of them that happened, in that case through the evil proprietary bigco systems.

Ultimately, the success of the cloud could very well depend on its service manageability in addition to security, across the stack (IaaS, Paas and SaaS); without which it will never be leveraged in an Enterprise Architecture.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, once all is said and done, operating clouds will require events and notifications etc via subscriptions. Thus; such standards, technology and processes will need to be in the clouds, be it IaaS, PaaS or SaaS. These will ensure processes such as incident, event, problem management etc are not ignored.</p>
<p>In general, I find that service management processes (as in the ITIL process framework and others) which includes service operation and others are somewhat of an after thought in the cloud. It seems the focus is on service transition or build (me a VM or something).</p>
<p>Whether such standards such as the WS-splat dealing with wisemen and wisdom can ever be reused is another more politically charged consideration.</p>
<p>Ultimately, business processes could span multiple clouds (be it public or private in-house) and non-cloud legacy things. Tying all the service management processes together could be a nightmare without such technology enablement.</p>
<p>Life was somewhat less automated before even SNMP and yet we still had events and management of them that happened, in that case through the evil proprietary bigco systems.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the success of the cloud could very well depend on its service manageability in addition to security, across the stack (IaaS, Paas and SaaS); without which it will never be leveraged in an Enterprise Architecture.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

