I was recently involved in a workshop looking at the relationship between "service oriented architecture" (SOA) and "component based architecture" (CBA) as enterprise architecture approaches.
 
We took, as an example, a hospital and tried developing both SOA and CBA views. This is roughly what emerged:
 
1. SOA View
--------------------
In the SOA view the hospital was viewed as a set of services, which could potentially be provided by different suppliers. Example services were: Hospitality, Catering, Pathology, Theatre, Specialist. (Note that we took a "Business" view of services rather than an "IT" view, along the lines suggested by Pat Helland of Microsoft). We derived a IT architecture from this, by aligning the data and functionality to the services. This led to an architecture in which the data/functionality for a given patient was distributed to different services: "Hospitality" owning information about patient accommodation and nursing routine; "Catering" about dietary requirements; "Specialist" owning medical notes; etc.
 
2. CBA View
--------------------
The CBA view (loosely based on the approach recommended in the book "UML Components" by Daniels and Cheeseman) drove the architecture from the core business entities and built services around them. In this approach, basic patient data and functionality was not distributed but owned by a single "Patient" component.
 
This example suggests that SOA and CBA lead to different results when applied to enterprise IT architectures. I would be interested in any views on the following questions:
 
Is this a valid/useful conclusion?
If so, can SOA be regarded as "superior" to CBA as an architectural approach?
 
Any views/comments welcome.
 
Rgds
Ashley


SPONSORED LINKS
Service-oriented architecture Computer monitoring software Computer and internet software
Free computer monitoring software


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to