(I am new to this group, this is my first post :-).
A few months ago I blogged about this topic here:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alur?entry=soa_service_coarse_or_fine
I feel a better way to look at it is what drives the interface definition. The interface needs to be driven by business needs and not by current implementation (components, objects, classes, etc.). For lack of a better term, I use "business-grained interface" to get away from the whole coarse vs. fine argument.
Another way to look at it is that the interfaces exposed to the external world is coarser-grained than the internal interfaces of the components and services it might be using or building upon. I have tried to show this in the diagram in the above blog post.
regards,
- deepak alur (http://blogs.sun.com/alur)
--- In [email protected], Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/15/06, Logan, Patrick D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > 'big' components that provide some service relevant to the business
> > > domain, use coarse grained interfaces). AFAIK there is not even the
> > > idea of making these interfaces as similar as possible to facilitate
> > > component integration.
> >
> > This whole "big components with coarse grained interfaces" is a
> > canard.
>
> I'd still like to understand what folks mean by "coarse grained
> interface". I see many people *saying* they're doing them, but when I
> look around at what's deployed, all I see are what I would personally
> call "fine grained interfaces". To me, "coarse grained" = "general".
>
> Mark.
> --
> Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
> Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
>
SPONSORED LINKS
| Service-oriented architecture | Computer monitoring software | Free computer monitoring software |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
