Distributed Orchestration Versus Choreography: The FOCAS Approach

  • Gabriel Pedraza
  • Jacky Estublier
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5543)


Web service orchestration is popular because the application logic is defined from a central and unique point of view, but it suffers from scalability issues. In choreography, the application is expressed as a direct communication between services without any central actor, making it scalable but also difficult to specify and implement. In this paper we present FOCAS, in which the application is described as a classic service orchestration extended by annotations expressing where activities, either atomic or composite, are to be executed. FOCAS analyzes the orchestration model and its distribution annotations and transforms the orchestration into a number of sub-orchestrations to be deployed on a set of distributed choreography servers, and then, deploys and executes the application. This approach seemingly fills the gap between “pure” orchestration (a single control server), and “pure” choreography (a server per service). The paper shows how FOCAS transforms a simple orchestration into a distributed one, fitting the distribution needs of the company, and also shows how choreography servers can be implemented using traditional orchestration engines.


Abstract Service Service Implementation Logical Layer Concrete Service Service Orchestration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alonso, G., Casati, F., Kuno, H., Machiraju, H.: Web Services - Concepts, Architectures and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Papazoglou, M., van den Heuvel, W.: Service oriented architectures: approaches, technologies and research issues. The VLDB Journal 16(3), 389–415 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peltz, C.: Web services orchestration and choreography. Computer 36(10), 46–52 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cubera, F.e.a.: Web Services Business Process Execution Language. Specification (April 2007),
  5. 5.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W3C: Web Services Choreography Interface (WSCI). Specification (August 2002),
  7. 7.
    W3C: Web services choreography description language version (November 2005),
  8. 8.
    Estublier, J., Ionita, A., Nguyen, T.: Code generation for a bi-dimensional composition mechanism. In: Central and East European Conference on Software Engineering Techniques (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pedraza, G., Dieng, I., Estublier, J.: Multi-concerns composition for a process support framework. In: Proceedings of the ECMDA Workshop on Model Driven Tool and Process Integration, FOKUS, Berlin (June 2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chollet, S., Lalanda, P.: Security specification at process level. In: IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC 2008) (July 2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koehler, J., Hauser, R., Sendall, S., Wahler, M.: Declarative techniques for model-driven business process integration. IBM Systems Journal 44(1), 47–65 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nitzsche, J., van Lessen, T., Karastoyanova, D., Leymann, F.: Bpellight. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 214–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charfi, A., Mezini, M.: Hybrid web service composition: business processes meet business rules. In: ICSOC 2004: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Service oriented computing, pp. 30–38. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pedraza, G., Estublier, J.: An extensible services orchestration framework through concern composition. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Non-functional System Properties in Domain Specific Modeling Languages, Toulouse (September 2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Estublier, J., Dami, S., Amiour, M.: Apel: A graphical yet executable formalism for process modeling. Automated Software Engineering: An International Journal 5(1), 61–96 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    France, R., Rumpe, B.: Model-driven development of complex software: A research roadmap. In: Future of Software Engineering, 2007. FOSE 2007, pp. 37–54 (May 2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Montagut, F., Molva, R.: Enabling pervasive execution of workflows. In: CollaborateCom 2005, 1st IEEE International Conference on Collaborative Computing:Networking, Applications and Worksharing, p. 10. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Benatallah, B., Dumas, M., Sheng, Q.Z.: Facilitating the rapid development and scalable orchestration of composite web services. Distributed and Parallel Databases 17(1), 5–37 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chafle, G., Chandra, S., Mann, V., Nanda, M.: Decentralized orchestration of composite web services. In: WWW Alt 2004: Proceedings of the 13th international World Wide Web conference, pp. 134–143. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel Pedraza
    • 1
  • Jacky Estublier
    • 1
  1. 1.LIGGrenoble Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations