On 10/12/07, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > On 10/12/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> > 2. grrr SOA! i'm unclear what this really means in this case. though
> > i've been following the lists for quite a while now, i still find it
> > really hard to understand the target use cases are for tuscany. is it
> > possible to accurately describe what what tuscany is used for without
> > using buzzwords?
> >
>
> I must admit that I hadn't perceived "SOA" as a buzzword. I agree that
> it is a deliberately imprecise term, but that it does describe a general
> architectural approach to building applications. Do you think we need
> to build some paragraphs here that describe what service-oriented
> architecture means?
the problem with meta-architectures is that most have no canonical
definition or description and so the same term means different things
to different people. once a meta-architecture gets hot, it leads to
outbreaks of Humpty Dumpty syndrome - "When I use a word, it means
exactly what I intend it to mean, no more, no less.". IMHO SOA has now
reached this stage.
> As for the target use cases for Tuscany - it is when you want to build a
> distributed application from independently acting, loosely coupled
> service components, which may be written using any of a range of
> programming technologies (Java, C++, Ruby, PHP....) and which may be
> connected using any of a range of communication technologies (Web
> services, REST, JMS, RMI-IIOP....).
^^^^^
some would say that SOA excludes REST. perhaps tuscany may (one day)
want to wire up ROA as well as SOA ;-)
anyway, tuscany simplifies the development, deployment and management
of distributed applications composed of independently acting, loosely
coupled, linguistically hetrogenous components connected using any of
a wide range of communication technologies
maybe it would be better to state this unambiguously rather than
relying on the correct interpretation of an ill-defined buzzword
<snip>
> > 4. does tuscany really want to limit itself to a single standard? if
> > another organisation created standards in this same area, would
> > tuscany really wish to exclude itself from creating an implementation?
> >
>
> No, Tuscany does not want to limit itself - indeed it already uses other
> standards like some of the WS-* standards. We had thought that the
> wording above didn't imply any limitation, but if we're mistaken in that
> view, perhaps we need to add some explicit words like:
>
> "...based on but not limited to..."
'based on' worries me - the language seems to me to be uncomfortably
close to 'derived from'. it's also a long sentence. perhaps something
like
"Tuscany will implement relevant open standards including ..."
would be better
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
