I agree with Radovan as well with respect
to the primary difference and this is a well taken point.
I have often used the term “reuse as developed” (components
> If
you work with components you work with code <) and “reuse as deployed” (services > if you work with services you use
some remote functionality over network <) to
describe this difference over the course of a conversation.
Mukund Balasubramanian
From: Keith
Harrison-Broninski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006
11:32 PM
To:
[email protected]
Subject: Re:
[service-orientated-architecture] Radovan on why services are not components
Gervas Douglas wrote:
>For those of you who have not read it, here is
an extract from an
>interesting blog by Radovan:
>
><<There has been some debate in the
industry on the differences
>between Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)
and Component-Based
>Architecture (CBA). Differences between SOA
and CBA such fine grained
>vs. coarse grained, business vs. IT, or
high-level vs. low-level are
>probably good observations, but I think the
main point lies elsewhere.
>
>At the end of the day, a component can be as
high-level, 'business
>level', and of the same 'granularity' as any
service. Or a service can
>be easily as fine-grained as a component.
>CBA and SOA are indeed different as they
address very different
>issues. If you work with components you work
with code; while if you
>work with services you use some remote
functionality over network
>under some contract.
>
>
FYI, this definition of "service" and
"component" is the same as that
used by Martin Fowler - I posted a link to
Fowler's definition to the
group a while back.
[FWIW, seems a sensible distinction to me]
--
All the best
Keith
http://keith.harrison-broninski.info
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
