On Dec 24, 2008, at 12:29 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Michael McGrady
<[email protected]> wrote:
You really don't understand what SOA is, Gregg. You are talking like
someone who says they don't give a damn about gravity because it is
just a
theoretical construct. The questions are way, way, way deeper and
more
subtle tthan you are allowing for here.
I think you guys have exhausted the subject, and I think it is time
to end it.
To summarize the views, in an analogy of buildings.
Michael's view; SOA == The architecture is an expression, sometimes
limited to the piece of paper it is expressed on, or even only as a
thought in the architects mind.
Gregg's view; SOA == The purpose of architecture is primarily to
construct buildings. Most architecture in expressed form is in the
buildings themselves, not admired residing on a piece of paper.
So, Michael; You analogy with gravity is IMHO almost opposite. You
have a more theoretical definition, and ignores the pragmatic use of
of those theories. So, fine... Big Deal. Let it rest, the last 3-4
rounds on the subject has not inched the discussion in any direction,
and none will abandon the principle of definitions.
The pragmatic use of SOA is in the business rules made by businessmen:
the creation of the Sz in SOA. That is what i stress. Your focus on
the IT structures trivializes what I am saying. I was enjoying he
debate but you are right that it was as advertised more of a
conversation with gregg than something appropriate to the list. Your
reaction to the gravity is interesting. Anyway, as i said, i enjoyed
the conversation, Gregg. hanks.
MIke
