> You read a lot about enabling service
re-use, but very little about organizations that
> actually achieve it on anything beyond a trivial scale.
I guess for this sentance to work, you need to define that scale. Number of applications using the service? Transactions per second? Business importance?
Scale is a dangerous aspect to bring into any discussion, because "we do 10.000 transactions per second" either means it's a real achievment to make that work, or you've designed your overal system really badly to need so many. :)
Also, there are a few areas in which re-use has proven itself worthy, and that's single sign-on (high in semantics) and the general search-engine (low in semantics), but I agree that both of these are general enough do with a bit of planning.
Not sure if this brings anything to the debate, but loose coupling and the general interface is very much doable when you bring ontologies into the mix; by putting the semantics and versioning into an ontology level, you can create truly general interfaces used by many which doesn't change over time. Of course there are ontological problems about, but it certainly is a direction I'm taking these days, and maybe this is what Jan earlier also hinted at?
Alexander
-- > actually achieve it on anything beyond a trivial scale.
I guess for this sentance to work, you need to define that scale. Number of applications using the service? Transactions per second? Business importance?
Scale is a dangerous aspect to bring into any discussion, because "we do 10.000 transactions per second" either means it's a real achievment to make that work, or you've designed your overal system really badly to need so many. :)
Also, there are a few areas in which re-use has proven itself worthy, and that's single sign-on (high in semantics) and the general search-engine (low in semantics), but I agree that both of these are general enough do with a bit of planning.
Not sure if this brings anything to the debate, but loose coupling and the general interface is very much doable when you bring ontologies into the mix; by putting the semantics and versioning into an ontology level, you can create truly general interfaces used by many which doesn't change over time. Of course there are ontological problems about, but it certainly is a direction I'm taking these days, and maybe this is what Jan earlier also hinted at?
Alexander
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
- Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________
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.
