Welcome!

Microservices Expo Authors: Elizabeth White, Pat Romanski, PagerDuty Blog, Derek Weeks, Liz McMillan

Related Topics: Microservices Expo

Microservices Expo: Article

Introducing WS-CAF - More than just transactions

Introducing WS-CAF - More than just transactions

Web services have become the integration platform of choice for enterprise applications. Those applications by the very nature of their enterprise-scale components can be complex in structure, which is compounded by the need to share common data or context across business processes supported by those applications. Those processes may be very long lived, and may contain periods of inactivity, for example, where constituent services require user interactions.

In response to these issues, WSCAF (Web Services Composite Application Framework) was publicly released in July 2003 after almost two years of effort, and has broad industry support from companies such as Iona, Oracle, Sun, and a host of others, and is now under the care of an OASIS standardization effort through the WS-CAF Technical Committee. The WS-CAF specifications are a suite of protocols designed to provide the necessary framework for composing Web services into larger aggregate business processes. Given that WS-CAF is the first framework of its kind to make its way into standardization, it's important to understand the principles underpinning it.

This article provides a high-level view of WS-CAF starting from the bottom up, explaining the layered architecture of the trio of specifications that comprise WS-CAF, and demonstrating how each of the specifications can be used in its own right or as a whole to provide a rich framework for building reliable composite applications.

WS-Context (WS-CTX)
The ability to scope units of work (known as activities) is a requirement of a variety of aspects of distributed applications. In order to correlate the work of multiple Web services within the same activity, it's necessary to propagate additional information - the context - to each participating service. The context contains information such as a unique ID that allows a series of operations to share a common outcome, and is propagated in a SOAP header block whenever application messages are transmitted between component services. The reliable management of the contexts that provide distributed application scope is addressed by the WS-Context specification.

The purpose of a context is to allow multiple individual Web services to enter a relationship by sharing certain common attributes as an externally modeled entity. Typical reasons for Web services to share context include common security domains where multiple Web services execute within the scope of a single authorized session, or common outcome negotiation where each party within the activity needs to know whether each of the other participants successfully completed his or her work.

The structure of a context is application specific (as we shall see, WS-CoordinationFramework and WS-TransactionManagement both extend the basic WSContext context for their own purposes), but contains at a minimum a unique ID in the form of a URI. Web services are identified as participants in the activity by including the context in an application message's SOAP header block (see Listing 1).

In general terms, a context defines basic information about the activity structure. It contains information necessary for multiple Web services to be associated with the same activity, which may be dynamically updated by services as the application or process makes progress. Activities are managed by the context service, which maintains a repository of shared contexts associated with execution environments. Whenever messages are exchanged within the scope of an activity, the context service can supply the associated context, which may then be propagated with those messages. The Context Service also manages hierarchies of contexts to support nesting and concurrency.

As we have seen, the core context propagation framework provides a generic context structure that enables an activity to be uniquely identified so that work can be correlated. Additionally, it supports application- and service-specific extensions to the context, structure. To facilitate this, the context consists of:

  • A mandatory URI identifier called <context-identifier>: Guarantees global uniqueness for an individual activity
  • An optional list of child activities: The <child-contexts> element
  • A <timeout> element: Indicates how long the context information is valid

    In addition to the context service, each Web service participating in an activity may register an Activity Lifecycle Service (or ALS) with the Context Service, which allows that service to be informed about the lifetime of the context. As we shall see, the ALS is the key component in utilizing WS-Context as the base protocol for other higher-level protocols. During execution, when a context is required for the activity associated with the current execution environment, the Context Service calls each registered ALS and obtains additional content for the basic context from it; from this it eventually assembles the entire context document that can be propagated.

    The relationship between ALS and context service, application services, and applications is shown in Figure 1.

     

    WS-Context does not mandate how contexts are actually created, but the canonical route is via the Activity Lifecycle services, which "plug-in" to the Context Service. In this respect, the exact structure and semantics of an activity are defined by the combination of ALSs that have been associated with the activity. For example, a Context Service may have a transaction ALS and security ALS registered with it, so that when an activity is started, any context that is created will contain any necessary transaction and security information.

    WS-Coordination Framework (WS-CF)
    WS-CF is the middle layer in the WSCAF set of specifications and provides an extensible framework that supports a wide range of different coordination protocols (e.g., two-phase or three-phase commit).

    While WS-Coordination Framework is ostensibly similar to WS-Coordination, the main differentiator is that WS-CF defines more of the coordinator's architecture than WS-Coordination (which leaves most things up to the services that use it). For example, in WS-CF you can actually inquire as to the status of a coordinator without having to know the details of the protocol (and its implementation). In many ways, WS-CF can be considered a superset of the WS-Coordination.

    Figure 2 illustrates how individual Web services as well as composite applications can register as participants with a coordinator, which takes over responsibility for context management and notifying participants of the outcome of a series of related Web services executions. As the figure shows, a coordinator can register itself with another coordinator and become a participant, thereby improving interoperability.

     

    WS-Transaction Management (WS-TXM)
    WS-TXM builds on WS-CF to provide transactional coordination. Figure 3 illustrates the layering of WS-TXM protocols. WS-TXM defines a set of pluggable transaction protocols that can be used with the coordinator to negotiate a set of actions for all participants to execute based on the outcome of a series of related Web services executions. The executions are related through the use of shared context (scopes) that can be nested (parent-child relationships) and concurrent.

     

    WS-TXM actually embodies three separate extended transaction protocols. Like WS-Transaction and BTP, WS-TXM provides models that are designed to accommodate multiple use cases, from tightlycoupled intranet-based transactions (TXACID), to Internet-scale, long-lived transactions (TX-LRA), to business process-oriented transactions (TX-BP).

    ACID Transactions
    This model is designed to support interoperability of existing transaction processing systems via Web services, since such systems already form the backbone of enterprise class applications. Although ACID transactions may not be suitable for all Web services, they are most definitely suitable for some, and particularly highvalue interactions such as those involved in finance. As a result, the ACID transaction model defined in WS-TXM has been designed with interoperability in mind. In the ACID model, each activity is bound to the scope of a transaction, so that the end of an activity automatically triggers the termination (commit or rollback) of the associated transaction.

    Long Running Activities (LRA)
    The LRA protocol is designed for those business interactions that are long in duration. Within this model, all work performed within the scope of an application should be compensatable. Therefore, an application's work is either performed successfully or undone. How individual Web services perform their work and ensure it can be undone if compensation is required is an implementation choice. The LRA model simply defines the triggers for compensation actions and the conditions under which those triggers are executed.

    There is a caveat to this model though. Application services may not be compensatable (e.g., an application-level service that prints and mails checks), or the ability to compensate may be transient. The LRA model allows applications to combine services that can be compensated with those that cannot be compensated. Obviously, by mixing the two service types the user may end up with a business activity that will ultimately not be undone by the LRA model, but which may require outside (application-specific) compensation.

    The LRA model defines a protocol actor called a compensator that operates on behalf of a service to undo the work it performs within the scope of an LRA. How compensation is carried out will obviously be dependent upon the service; compensation work may be carried out by other LRAs which themselves have compensators.

    When a service performs work that may later have to be compensated within the scope of an LRA, it enlists a compensator participant with the LRA coordinator. The coordinator will send the compensator one of the following messages when the activity terminates:

  • Success: The activity has completed successfully. If the activity is nested, then compensators may propagate that outcome to the enclosing LRA.
  • Fail: The activity has not completed. All compensators that are registered with the LRA will be invoked to perform compensation in reverse order. The coordinator forgets about all compensators that indicated they operated correctly. Otherwise, compensation may be attempted again or a compensation violation has occurred and must be logged.

    LRAs may be used both sequentially and concurrently, where the termination of an LRA signals the start of some other unit of work within an application. However, LRAs are units of compensatable work and an application may have as many units of work operating simultaneously as it needs to accomplish its tasks. Furthermore, the outcome of work within LRAs may determine how other LRAs are terminated.

    An application can be structured so that LRAs are used to assemble units of compensatable work and then held in the active state while the application performs other work in the scope of different (concurrent or sequential) LRAs. Only when the right subset of work (LRAs) is arrived at by the application will that subset be confirmed; all other LRAs will be told to cancel (complete in a failure state).

    Business Process (BP)
    The BP protocol is significantly different from any of the other transaction models we have seen to date (and there is no directly comparable model in either WSTransaction or BTP). This model is specifically aimed at tying heterogeneous transaction domains together into a single business- to-business transaction. For example, with the BP model it's possible to have a long-running business transaction span messaging, workflow, and traditional ACID transactions, allowing enterprises to leverage their existing IT investment.

    In the business process transaction model, all parties involved in a business process reside within business domains, which may themselves use business processes to perform work. Business process transactions are responsible for managing interactions between these domains. A business process is split into business tasks and each task executes within a specific business domain. A business domain may itself be subdivided into other business domains recursively.

    Each domain may represent a different transaction model if such a federation of models is more appropriate to the activity. Each business task (which may be modelled as a scope) may provide implementation- specific countereffects in the event the enclosing scope must cancel. Furthermore, the controlling application may periodically request that all business domains checkpoint their state so that they can either be consistently rolled back to that checkpoint by the application or restarted from the checkpoint in the event of a failure.

    Figure 4 shows an online travel agent interacting with its suppliers, each of which resides in its own business domain. The work necessary to obtain each component is modelled as a separate task. In this example, the Flight Reservation task is actually composed of two subtasks - one gets the flight and the other gets the necessary travel insurance.

     

    In this example, the user may interact synchronously with the travel agent to build up the required details of the holiday. Or, the user may submit an order (possibly with a list of alternate requirements, such as destinations, dates, etc.) to the agent, who will call back when it has been filled. Likewise, the travel agent then submits orders to each supplier, requiring them to call back when each component is available (or is known to be unavailable).

    Business domains are instructed to perform work within the scope of a global business process. The business process has an overall manager that may be informed by individual tasks when they have completed their work or it may periodically communicate with each task to determine its current status. In addition, each task may make checkpoints of its progress so if a failure occurs, it may be restarted from that point rather than having to start from the beginning. A business process can either terminate in a confirmed (successful) manner, in which case all of the work requested will have been performed, or it will terminate in a cancelled (unsuccessful) manner, in which case all of the work will be undone.

    If it cannot be undone, then this fact must be logged.

    Summary
    From a distance, WS-CAF may be misinterpreted simply as the industry's third attempt at designing a transaction management solution for Web services. However, while one aspect of WS-CAF does address the kind of extended transaction models that are crucial for Web services reliability, there is actually much more to WS-CAF than just transactions. WS-CAF also provides generic context-management and service-coordination frameworks that can form the basis of composite applications, processes, and workflows. These features are exposed to Web services-based applications and can be tailored to build protocols that are specific to particular applications domains.

    References

  • Webber J., and Little M.C. (May 2003) "Introducing WS-Coordination, part 1" Web Services Journal, Vol. 3, Issue 5.
  • Little M.C. and Webber J. (June 2003) "Introducing WS-Transaction, part 2," Web Services Journal. Vol. 3, Issues 6-7.
  • Dalal, S., et al. ( January 2003). "Coordinating Business Transactions on the Web." IEEE Internet Computing Special Edition on Web Services.

    Comparison Between OASIS BTP and WS-Coordination/Transaction
    WS-CAF is not the only transactional coordination protocol for Web services. Indeed, in the past we've seen OASIS BTP and IBM/Microsoft/BEA WSCoordination and WS-Transaction. To help illustrate the features of WS-CAF, it is instructive to take a look at the factorization and features of the prior efforts.

    OASIS BTP was the first transaction protocol to gain real traction for Web services. It consists of a single API that supports two distinct transaction models, known as atom and cohesion. The atom model is a straightforward two-phase protocol where all participants in a transaction see the same outcome, although BTP does not impose any semantics on what action a particular participant takes on receipt of an outcome message (an atom may or may not be ACID). The cohesion model is more complex, and allows the set of participants to change throughout the duration of the transaction, up until the point when the confirmation protocol executes. However, unlike the atom model, BTP cohesions may deliver different outcome messages to individual participants, based on the combination of responses from participants and some business logic.

    Similarly, WS-Transaction has two transaction models: atomic transactions require ACID semantics and mandate that resources are locked for the transaction's duration. Business activities, on the other hand, are designed for use in long-running transactions. They ensure that any updates to state in a system are made immediately, significantly reducing the period during which locks must be held. WS-Transaction has no notion of a two-phase commit for a business activity because commits are made immediately on receipt of the associated messages. If a failure occurs, a business activity runs compensating actions to restore data to a consistent form.

    Underpinning WS-Transaction is WS-Coordination, which provides a generic mechanism for context creation and coordination and is extended through protocol plug-ins that provide domain-specific coordination facilities.

    Figure 5 highlights the two key differences between the specifications. The most striking feature is that each offers different transaction models at the uppermost layers, but it is important to note that the WS-Coordination layer in the WSTransaction/ WS-Coordination stack is also available for applications to build on. In the WS-CAF stack, the WS-Context layer is also exposed for use.

     
  • More Stories By Mark Little

    Mark Little was Chief Architect, Transactions for Arjuna Technologies Ltd, a UK-based company specialising in the development of reliable middleware that was recently acquired by JBoss, Inc. Before Arjuna, Mark was a Distinguished Engineer/Architect within HP Arjuna Labs in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, where he led the HP-TS and HP-WST teams, developing J2EE and Web services transactions products respectively. He is one of the primary authors of the OMG Activity Service specification and is on the expert group for the same work in J2EE (JSR 95). He is also the specification lead for JSR 156: Java API for XML Transactions. He's on the OTS Revision Task Force and the OASIS Business Transactions Protocol specification. Before joining HP he was for over 10 years a member of the Arjuna team within the University of Newcastle upon Tyne (where he continues to have a Visiting Fellowship). His research within the Arjuna team included replication and transactions support, which include the construction of an OTS/JTS compliant transaction processing system. Mark has published extensively in the Web Services Journal, Java Developer's Journal and other journals and magazines. He is also the co-author of several books including “Java and Transactions for Systems Professionals” and “The J2EE 1.4 Bible.”

    More Stories By Jim Webber

    Dr. Jim Webber is a senior researcher from the University of Newcastle
    upon Tyne, currently working in the convergence of Web Services and Grid
    technologies at the University of Sydney, Australia. Jim was previously
    Web Services architect with Arjuna Technologies where he worked on Web
    Services transactioning technology, including being one of the original
    authors of the WS-CAF specification. Prior to Arjuna, Jim was the lead
    developer with Hewlett-Packard on the industry's first Web Services
    Transaction solution. Co-author of "Developing Enterprise Web Services -
    An Architect's Guide," Jim is an active speaker and author in the Web
    Services space. Jim's home on the web is http://jim.webber.name

    Comments (1) View Comments

    Share your thoughts on this story.

    Add your comment
    You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

    In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.


    Most Recent Comments
    melliti 12/13/03 01:46:28 PM EST

    I m a student and im interessted in your articles.
    think you

    @MicroservicesExpo Stories
    The past few years have brought a sea change in the way applications are architected, developed, and consumed—increasing both the complexity of testing and the business impact of software failures. How can software testing professionals keep pace with modern application delivery, given the trends that impact both architectures (cloud, microservices, and APIs) and processes (DevOps, agile, and continuous delivery)? This is where continuous testing comes in. D
    SYS-CON Events announced today that Synametrics Technologies will exhibit at SYS-CON's 22nd International Cloud Expo®, which will take place on June 5-7, 2018, at the Javits Center in New York, NY. Synametrics Technologies is a privately held company based in Plainsboro, New Jersey that has been providing solutions for the developer community since 1997. Based on the success of its initial product offerings such as WinSQL, Xeams, SynaMan and Syncrify, Synametrics continues to create and hone in...
    Many IT organizations have come to learn that leveraging cloud infrastructure is not just unavoidable, it’s one of the most effective paths for IT organizations to become more responsive to business needs. Yet with the cloud comes new challenges, including minimizing downtime, decreasing the cost of operations, and preventing employee burnout to name a few. As companies migrate their processes and procedures to their new reality of a cloud-based infrastructure, an incident management solution...
    Some people are directors, managers, and administrators. Others are disrupters. Eddie Webb (@edwardawebb) is an IT Disrupter for Software Development Platforms at Liberty Mutual and was a presenter at the 2016 All Day DevOps conference. His talk, Organically DevOps: Building Quality and Security into the Software Supply Chain at Liberty Mutual, looked at Liberty Mutual's transformation to Continuous Integration, Continuous Delivery, and DevOps. For a large, heavily regulated industry, this task...
    Modern software design has fundamentally changed how we manage applications, causing many to turn to containers as the new virtual machine for resource management. As container adoption grows beyond stateless applications to stateful workloads, the need for persistent storage is foundational - something customers routinely cite as a top pain point. In his session at @DevOpsSummit at 21st Cloud Expo, Bill Borsari, Head of Systems Engineering at Datera, explored how organizations can reap the bene...
    Kubernetes is an open source system for automating deployment, scaling, and management of containerized applications. Kubernetes was originally built by Google, leveraging years of experience with managing container workloads, and is now a Cloud Native Compute Foundation (CNCF) project. Kubernetes has been widely adopted by the community, supported on all major public and private cloud providers, and is gaining rapid adoption in enterprises. However, Kubernetes may seem intimidating and complex ...
    Gaining visibility in today’s sprawling cloud infrastructure is complex and laborious, involving drilling down into tools offered by various cloud services providers. Enterprise IT organizations need smarter and effective tools at their disposal in order to address this pertinent problem. Gaining a 360 - degree view of the cloud costs requires collection and analysis of the cost data across all cloud infrastructures used inside an enterprise.
    You know you need the cloud, but you’re hesitant to simply dump everything at Amazon since you know that not all workloads are suitable for cloud. You know that you want the kind of ease of use and scalability that you get with public cloud, but your applications are architected in a way that makes the public cloud a non-starter. You’re looking at private cloud solutions based on hyperconverged infrastructure, but you’re concerned with the limits inherent in those technologies.
    Gone are the days when application development was the daunting task of the highly skilled developers backed with strong IT skills, low code application development has democratized app development and empowered a new generation of citizen developers. There was a time when app development was in the domain of people with complex coding and technical skills. We called these people by various names like programmers, coders, techies, and they usually worked in a world oblivious of the everyday pri...
    Our work, both with clients and with tools, has lead us to wonder how it is that organizations are handling compliance issues in the cloud. The big cloud vendors offer compliance for their infrastructure, but the shared responsibility model requires that you take certain steps to meet compliance requirements. Which lead us to start poking around a little more. We wanted to get a picture of what was available, and how it was being used. There is a lot of fluidity in this space, as in all things ...
    The dynamic nature of the cloud means that change is a constant when it comes to modern cloud-based infrastructure. Delivering modern applications to end users, therefore, is a constantly shifting challenge. Delivery automation helps IT Ops teams ensure that apps are providing an optimal end user experience over hybrid-cloud and multi-cloud environments, no matter what the current state of the infrastructure is. To employ a delivery automation strategy that reflects your business rules, making r...
    The notion of improving operational efficiency is conspicuously absent from the healthcare debate - neither Obamacare nor the newly proposed GOP plan discusses the impact that a step-function improvement in efficiency could have on access to healthcare (through more capacity), quality of healthcare services (through reduced wait times for patients) or cost (through better utilization of scarce, expensive assets).
    Admiral Calcote - also known as Lee Calcote (@lcalcote) or the Ginger Geek to his friends - gave a presentation entitled Characterizing and Contrasting Container Orchestrators at the 2016 All Day DevOps conference. Okay, he isn't really an admiral - nor does anyone call him that - but he used the title admiral to describe what container orchestrators do, relating it to an admiral directing a fleet of container ships. You could also say that they are like the conductor of an orchestra, directing...
    Cloud Governance means many things to many people. Heck, just the word cloud means different things depending on who you are talking to. While definitions can vary, controlling access to cloud resources is invariably a central piece of any governance program. Enterprise cloud computing has transformed IT. Cloud computing decreases time-to-market, improves agility by allowing businesses to adapt quickly to changing market demands, and, ultimately, drives down costs.
    For DevOps teams, the concepts behind service-oriented architecture (SOA) are nothing new. A style of software design initially made popular in the 1990s, SOA was an alternative to a monolithic application; essentially a collection of coarse-grained components that communicated with each other. Communication would involve either simple data passing or two or more services coordinating some activity. SOA served as a valid approach to solving many architectural problems faced by businesses, as app...
    Some journey to cloud on a mission, others, a deadline. Change management is useful when migrating to public, private or hybrid cloud environments in either case. For most, stakeholder engagement peaks during the planning and post migration phases of a project. Legacy engagements are fairly direct: projects follow a linear progression of activities (the “waterfall” approach) – change managers and application coders work from the same functional and technical requirements. Enablement and develo...
    The “Digital Era” is forcing us to engage with new methods to build, operate and maintain applications. This transformation also implies an evolution to more and more intelligent applications to better engage with the customers, while creating significant market differentiators. In both cases, the cloud has become a key enabler to embrace this digital revolution. So, moving to the cloud is no longer the question; the new questions are HOW and WHEN. To make this equation even more complex, most ...
    Recent survey done across top 500 fortune companies shows almost 70% of the CIO have either heard about IAC from their infrastructure head or they are on their way to implement IAC. Yet if you look under the hood while some level of automation has been done, most of the infrastructure is still managed in much tradition/legacy way. So, what is Infrastructure as Code? how do you determine if your IT infrastructure is truly automated?
    Every few years, a disruptive force comes along that prompts us to reframe our understanding of what something means, or how it works. For years, the notion of what a computer is and how you make one went pretty much unchallenged. Then virtualization came along, followed by cloud computing, and most recently containers. Suddenly the old rules no longer seemed to apply, or at least they didn’t always apply. These disruptors made us reconsider our IT worldview.
    As people view cloud as a preferred option to build IT systems, the size of the cloud-based system is getting bigger and more complex. As the system gets bigger, more people need to collaborate from design to management. As more people collaborate to create a bigger system, the need for a systematic approach to automate the process is required. Just as in software, cloud now needs DevOps. In this session, the audience can see how people can solve this issue with a visual model. Visual models ha...