Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: What is a "well defined interface"?

[Todd Biske]

Well put Ron!  If there was one "right" set, we'd all probably be out of work.  It's the challenge of applying the proper solution to the problem at hand that keeps all of this interesting.  It becomes an exercise in predicting the future, to some extent.  I can look back to my own OO programming efforts to realize that a lot of things that were considered good OO practice only served to add complexity to the solution.  Separation of concerns can be a good thing in general, but it the concerns being separated in the technical solution are never separated in reality, we only made things more complicated.  We have a great set of tools and techniques, and are continuing to better understand where separation should occur, and where it shouldn't.  We always need to do some analysis on the problem and understand how the characteristics of the problem may change over time.  Is it a highly regulated area?  Is it a well-defined and accepted process?   This reminds me of the questions that I sent Ron, Jason, and Eyal Maor after the latest ZapThink podcast.  While we talk of policy-based computing, the practical application of policy has struggled to move beyond security and some operational routing rules, at least in the things I've seen.  My sample set may be limited, so I'd be happy to hear the experience of others with a broader knowledge base. -tb On Feb 26, 2006, at 7:01 AM, Ron Schmelzer wrote: Who needs an SOA, then? Just build ONE Service and be done with it. But I think we're devolving into a point here that very few companies would find useful to implement. We're not looking for a single Service we can reuse, but a collection of the *right* Services that can be used to solve ongoing IT problems. This requires some level of coupling to make it usable. A theoretical exercise in a grand-unified-theory of Services serves very few end-user companies in practicality. Ron Gregg Wonderly wrote: Ron Schmelzer wrote: > Wow -- very insightful response. That's quite correct. In general, > that's why we only have a certain amount of looseness in coupling. > You're always coupled at SOME level, and in this case, we have semantic > tight coupling, even though we might have delivery loose coupling. So, > can you ever truly be "decoupled"? Probably not. public interface DoesItAllNoMatterWhatYouWant extends Remote {       public Object doItAllAsFastAsYouCan( Object val ) throws Throwable; } There it is, the interface that does everything. Now, will it actually be useful?  Looks to me like a REST service interface. Gregg Wonderly __________ NOD32 1.1418 (20060224) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __________ NOD32 1.1418 (20060224) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com -- _____________________________________________________________ Ronald Schmelzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Analyst ZapThink LLC Direct: 781-577-2779 / Main: 781-207-0203 SPONSORED LINKS Computer software Computer aided design software Computer job Soa Service-oriented architecture 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. SPONSORED LINKS Computer software Computer aided design software Computer job Soa Service-oriented architecture 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.