JP Morgenthal wrote: >2. Components have business-oriented, service-oriented interfaces. >Components do not have interfaces that reflect middleware abstractions; they >have interfaces that reflect business abstractions > >Again, this is what a service is to me. > Came across this today; Martin Fowler's definition of "component" and "service":
> I use component to mean a glob of software that's intended to be used, > without change, by application that is out of the control of the > writers of the component. By 'without change' I mean that the using > application doesn't change the source code of the components, although > they may alter the component's behavior by extending it in ways > allowed by the component writers. > > A service is similar to a component in that it's used by foreign > applications. The main difference is that I expect a component to be > used locally (think jar file, assembly, dll, or a source import). A > service will be used remotely through some remote interface, either > synchronous or asynchronous (eg web service, messaging system, RPC, or > socket.) > From an article about "Inversion of Control Containers and the Dependency Injection pattern" at http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html. Not a typical usage of the terms, I would think, but an interesting one in relation to this discussion. -- All the best Keith http://keith.harrison-broninski.info ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life. http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/NhFolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
