Jan Algermissen wrote:
> > Obviously when designing a system which is meant to stay the course we
> > need to make it as adaptable, reusable and evolvable as possible.
>
> Right. IIRC there is such a system that has proven to be quite well
> designed and is has now been around for a decade.
>
> > That after all is the whole point of SOA.
>
> Fine, but since there is such a system....why design a new one that
> is not even an evolution of the existing, proven one?
>
> Why use build upon a paradigm (specific interfaces) that is known for
> its poor success regarding reusability and evolvability.
The lack of training, and the enabling of failure by certain features provide
most failure scenarios related to technologies. Humans most dependable feature
is our ability to fail at the most inopportune moment (Murphy's Law). Systems
that provide more choices enable humans to make more wrong choices. The
ability
to not be specific, is enabling right up to the point that Murphy's Law
reappears.
Clearly, there is some balancing going on in all parts of our lifes where we
way
risks associated with choices.
We sent a spaceship to Mars and watched it bury itself into the planet. It had
software on board with a method that apparently had the signature:
double getSpeed();
It would have been better if the sigature was:
MilesPerHour getSpeed();
so that the people who used that value would have known it wasn't
MetersPerSecond and underestimated the descent speed.
Specifics matter, and more type information makes the contract between software
components easier to validate (and I'm not suggesting that the failure to test
this software was somehow okay).
Gregg Wonderly
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/
