GSoSD review discussion Point 4: How do we name the Orchestration System (Core) and the Choreography System (Support) such that we avoid unnecessary confusion from the Microservices communities?

[flarrinaga]

The purpose of this issue is to agree on a naming scheme that avoids confusion between these two systems. During the roadmap meetings this question was brought up. We queried ChatGPT for a naming proposal based on the systems functionality. The naming proposal given by ChatGPT can be found in the following document along with a name "migration" proposal. Arrowhead naming proposal for Orchestrator-Choreographer.docx
This issue is open to further naming proposals.

[emanuelpalm]

I can't remember who brought it up during our last meeting (was it @PerOlofsson-Sinetiq?), but someone suggested to call it "service orchestration" and "software orchestration". What I like about this proposal is that we can keep using the word "orchestration".

One definition of orchestrate is "to arrange or combine so as to achieve a desired or maximum effect". To me that neatly captures the idea of making sure the right thing (service record or software artifact) ends up in the right place.

[emanuelpalm]

I would like us to avoid terms such as mediator and engine in the names of Arrowhead systems, and I believe we should only use the term broker for a system involved in message brokering (Publish-Subscribe).

Service Mediator

The reason for avoiding mediator is that all computer software mediate something. Computer programs do not have their own desires. They mediate the intents of their programmers or owners. They receive instructions and forward instructions to other software and hardware systems. What does a service mediator really mediate?

In the same sense, all computer programs manage resources and handle data. While these terms (manager and handler) were not included in your proposal, I just want to highlight that these words have the same problem and should not be used for other Arrowhead systems.

Service Broker

In my mind at least, the term "broker" is so tied up to the Publish-Subscribe paradigm that I'm hesitant to use it for anything else than that. I'm not going to say that I'm definitely against it, however.

Orchestration Engine

In the context of software, the term engine means something like "the thing makes another thing work at a fundamental level". A graphics engine makes graphics work, while a search engine makes search work, and so on. How does an orchestration engine make orchestration work?

Orchestration vs. Choreography

The definitions of orchestration and choreography presented by ChatGPT seem to align with what is said in this StackOverflow question. If we follow this definition, there is no Arrowhead system that is engaged in choreography, right? The choreographer just becomes another kind of service orchestration system? Or perhaps an "orchestration coordinator" or an "orchestration workflow agent"?

[flarrinaga]

Thank you for your input. I agree to your comments.
So at this stage we have the following proposal:
For the Orchestration System (Core), the proposal is Software Orchestration System (Core)
For the Choreography System (Support), the proposal is Service Orchestration System (Support).

This last system could also be called Workflow Orchestration System (Support) since it is in charge of managing a series of tasks/services in a workflow from a central point (orchestrator).

Please, give us your feedback on these naming proposal.

Regards

[emanuelpalm]

@flarrinaga As far as I understand it, the Arrowhead core system that has been referred to as the Orchestration System up until this point orchestrates service records, not software artifacts. An example of a system that orchestrates software artifacts is HashiCorp Nomad.

[flarrinaga]

@emanuelpalm Ok. So which is your naming proposal?
Could this be valid?
For the Orchestration System (Core), the proposal is Orchestration System (Core)
For the Choreography System (Support), the proposal is Workflow Orchestration System (Support).

[emanuelpalm]

@flarrinaga Yes, pretty much so.

Using Workflow in the new name of the Choreography system is your idea, however. I'm not taking credit for that. I think it is a suitable name. 👍

To be very explicit then, this is what I endorse (none of the name ideas are mine):

Current	Endorsed
Orchestration System	Service Orchestration System
Choreography System	Workflow Orchestration System

[borditamas]

AITIA view:

We think that here the continuity and consistency is more important towards to the existing Arrowhead community then the alignment with other communities. As long as the word expresses the purpose of the system, every community will be able to adapt to it.

We can support the above mentioned proposal:

Current	Endorsed
Orchestration System	Service Orchestration System
Choreography System	Workflow Orchestration System

[jerkerdelsing]

Short discussion on naming no final conclusion reached. Discussion on merging of the v4 Choreography system and Workflow Manager system.

[DavidRutqvist]

Current Endorsed
Orchestration System Service Orchestration System
Choreography System Workflow Orchestration System

I could be OK with this. I agree with the new renaming of Choreography System into Workflow Orchestration System.

Since the current Orchestration System coordinates what systems talk to what services without specifying any order of tasks I would call this Service Choreography System instead.

The word choreography emphasizes the autonomousness of systems more than orchestration. An orchestration system would be more "call service X then service Y" whereas a choreography system would be more "You should call service X and Y however you like".

[jerkerdelsing]

From 17/8 meeting. Seams we have an agreement. JD to contact Felix on updating this to the GSoSD.