On 2/28/06, Todd Biske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't disagree. Perhaps my comments would have been better stated > as the extent to which general vs. specific is a measurement of a > well-defined interface is dependent on whether or not the business > need is for a general purpose or for a specific purpose.
Sure. But from all I've seen, businesses *need* loose coupling. They need implementation changes to remain hidden behind the interface so as to not cause a cascade of follow-on changes, just to name one benefit. > If an organization isn't prepared to change the services > that it uses (either create new services and migrate consumers to > them, or change the services that are in use, possibly changing > consumers if needed), they are imposing rigidity into their IT > systems, which is counter to the objectives of SOA. Organizations should certainly be prepared to change their services; I'm totally with you there. But IMO, they should do it by changing implementations, as changing interfaces is hugely expensive, especially to their customers/partners who've written code that uses those interfaces. I think interface changes should be avoided wherever possible. And I think generic interfaces best support this objective, as previously discussed (and which you appeared to agree with - kudos). Perhaps we just disagree about how often interface changes are required in practice? In my experience (yes, I do have considerable experience with this approach 8-), it's *very* rarely necessary when a fully generic interface is used. Cheers, Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca 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/
