Jan, This Group has tried on more than one occasion ( as have other fora) to define SOA, but it would seem that the technology has not matured enough for a generally accepted consensus to emerge. Although WS brought SOA to the industry's widespread attention, many would argue that it has been around for some time. An example of a pre-WS implementation would be a major multi-platform integration project that IONA did for CSFB in Switzerland if my memory is correct. Being IONA, this was based on CORBA.
I forget the details, but no doubt an Ionan on this Group could describe how it fits in or not with modern conceptions of a SOA. An interesting task of the project was to integrate legacy platforms (e.g. 3270/CICS) which had been designed as closed, standalone systems. I suspect that as technologies evolve future SOAs will face new unforeseen interoperability challenges not yet envisaged. Gervas --- In [email protected], Jan Algermissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eric, > > On Jan 16, 2006, at 3:37 AM, Eric Newcomer wrote: > > > Jan (& Patrick), > > > > I should have added an apology for misunderstanding > > the question. Sorry about that! > > > > NO! No problem at all. In fact, apologies if I have maybe not > responded on the point - I have no time to follow closely, mostly > posting whenever I see a mail that triggers a thought. > > But the general question remains: Does any definition exist that > would allow me to distinguish SOA from <put any distributed object > technology here>? Especially if we consider that SOA in a sense > enforces some DO design practices while Corba et al. do not, but that > it does not build upon a conceptually different architecture. > > Another way to ask: is there anything about SOA that makes it > architecturally different from old-fashioned DO technologies? > > Sure, you have language independence, free choice of transport > mechanism,.. but this does not make SOA a distinguishable software > architectural style (which the name[1] implies, IMHO). > > And if it is not....then it is just as good as the old stuff, isn't it? > > > Jan > > [1] and vendor promisses > > > > > Eric > > > > --- Jan Algermissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> Eric, > >> > >> On Jan 15, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Eric Newcomer wrote: > >> > >>> I meant formal in the sense that it is as simple > >> and > >>> precise a definition as possible. > >> > >> Umm...without any attempt to insult you, but this is > >> kinda meaningless. > >> > >> Honestly, where is that formal definition of SOA > >> that enables me to > >> determine whether an architecture is of the SOA > >> style or not? What > >> are the formal criteria for this? > >> > >> Suppose a client asks: Are we SOA? How do I find out > >> if yes or no? > >> > >> I think that is what Patrick is asking for. > >> > >> Jan > >> > >> > >> > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > __ > >> > >> _______________ > >> Jan Algermissen, Consultant & Programmer > >> > >> http://jalgermissen.com > >> Tugboat Consulting, 'Applying Web technology to > >> enterprise IT' > >> http://www.tugboat.de > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > _______________ > Jan Algermissen, Consultant & Programmer > http://jalgermissen.com > Tugboat Consulting, 'Applying Web technology to enterprise IT' > http://www.tugboat.de > 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/
