Yes, such definitions exist, and they can be found in the book I wrote with Greg and in Enterprise SOA, for example.
I have promised to type in some of this information for this email list, and I will try to get to it this week. Eric --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > >Hi Mark, > > > >Thanks very much for the references. > > > >I am sorry if I wasn't clear in the paragraph you > >reference. I was trying to draw a distinction > between > >the definition of an architectural style (such as > SOA) > > Hmm...but if SOA is indeed an architectural style > there should be a definition of the constraints > somewhere that it puts on the various architectural > elements (as distinguished by Perry/Wulf or > Fielding). > > Unless you do *not* agree that the purpose of > architectural styles is to constrain architectural > elements (thus enforcing certain properties of > architectures of a given style and thereby enabling > us to safely make assumptions about the > architecture). > > For SOA, something like this does simply not exist, > right? > > Jan > > > > > >and a concrete protocol specification (such as > HTTP). > >An architectural style is not a technology - > meaning > >that the definition of the style is distinct from > its > >implementation in any particular technology. > > > >I believe for example REST is not the same as HTTP, > >the former being the architectural style and the > >latter being the technology which most closely > >implements the style. Sometimes it seems like > >confusion still exists between the two, and > sometimes > >it seems like confusion still exists between an SOA > >and the technology that can be used to implement > one. > > > >Eric > > > > > >--- Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On 1/16/06, Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > One point that will always give us trouble > >> compared to > >> > the specs for HTTP, SOAP etc. is that SOA is > not a > >> > technology like those but a style of design, or > >> > approach to IT that is technology independent. > So > >> you > >> > can't nail it down the way you can nail down > >> something > >> > like J2EE using a set of API and protocol > specs. > >> > >> Eric, I'm disappointed to here you say that. > We've > >> had a pretty > >> decent framework for rigorously (not "formally") > >> defining > >> architectural styles for many years now, since at > >> least Perry and > >> Wolff's "Foundations" paper and its predecessors, > >> i.e.; > >> > >> > >http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~perry/work/papers/swa89.pdf > >> > >> FWIW, I took a stab at this a few years ago; > >> > >> > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Sep/0083.html > >> > >> But that was rejected. A few months later, Dave > >> Orchard made his own attempt; > >> > >> > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Feb/0055.html > >> > >> Which was also rejected. 8-( > >> > >> Mark. > >> -- > >> Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. > >> http://www.markbaker.ca > >> Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies > >> http://www.coactus.com > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > >http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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/
