Todd, I am not sure there's a disagreement here. It could just be terminology. In fact I suspect JP of splitting hairs in that regard ;-).
If the question is whether new infrastructure is needed, that's a good question. I would say mostly not, as I think you have said. My view is that most companies already have the features and functions they need for an SOA. But they need a little bit of "improvement" infrastructure to service enable existing applications and allow them to talk to each other. This is consistent with what I mentioned in the reply to JP, that the software industry has reached a level of maturity at which the old type of software isn't needed, but a new kind of software is needed. In particular what's needed is software to help realize and value of existing investments. This is what I mean when I use the term SOA infrastructure. I do not mean building complete new systems from scratch. Maybe we are debating terminology - my view of SOA infrastructure is what you need to include existing systems into SOA based applications, nothing more, unless, of course, entirely new services need to be developed. But I am not assuming that is the case. Eric --- Todd Biske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I side with JP on this one. The only infrastructure > that could be > considered new when adopting an SOA would be a > service repository and > possibly some new management tools for service-based > reporting rather > than application-based reporting. If you're > embracing Web Services > as part of the SOA strategy, you may also want some > form of Web > Services Intermediary/ESB/XML Gateway, but that's > not mandatory. > > -tb > > On Mar 11, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Eric Newcomer wrote: > > > Hi JP - > > > > I am not sure what you think SOA Infrastructure > means, > > but to me it means the technology needed to > implement > > an SOA based application - i.e. an application > > designed using an SOA. > > > > The coin in this case has two sides - yes, SOA > based > > design is independent of technology. However, > > technology is needed to implement the design. > > > > I fail to see a problem in calling that technology > > "SOA Infrastructure." > > > > Best, > > > > Eric > > > > > > --- JP Morgenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >> Sorry, but I have to weigh in on the title of > this > >> thread. Here's a blog > >> entry I just posted at: > >> > > > http://www.avorcor.com/morgenthal/index.php?entry=entry060311-084440 > >> > >> SOA and SODA > >> Saturday, March 11, 2006, 08:43 AM > >> When the term SODA first started being bandied > about > >> I was less than > >> enthusiastic about the terminology. SODA stands > for > >> Service-Oriented Design > >> of Applications. However, there's been a lot of > >> recent discussion of a topic > >> termed "SOA Infrastructure", which has forced me > to > >> re-examine the SODA term > >> and start to use it to help explain and > >> differentiate between general SOA > >> and a technological SOA. > >> > >> First of all, I do not believe there is anything > >> called "SOA > >> Infrastructure." As I explain SOA to my clients, > SOA > >> is a way of designing a > >> system. A system is an abstract entity, like a > >> lighting system, electrical > >> system, and heating and cooling system. In this > case > >> the system we're > >> designing is a business system. There's no > >> infrastructure involved, just > >> artifacts, components and the relationships > between > >> these two. > >> > >> An SOA can be used to design an Enterprise, a > >> software system, even a > >> telephone system. There's no limitation or > inherent > >> attribute that says that > >> a service has to be described as a software > >> component. To do so only limits > >> the value of this architectural pattern and sets > it > >> up to be easily > >> dismissed by non-technological personnel. > >> > >> When you get into discussions of SOA > infrastructure, > >> in my mind, you're in > >> the SODA world. You're specifically talking about > an > >> implementation approach > >> to a system designed using SOA. Things like > >> registries and enterprise > >> service buses are components of a software-only > >> system. They have nothing to > >> do with a banking system I designed using SOA > that > >> identifies each of the > >> specific types of services the bank offers as a > >> service. > >> > >> For example, I can design a bank system with a > >> checking service, loan > >> service, loan decisioning service, investment > >> service, corporate banking > >> service, etc. In each case, these services > represent > >> more than some Web > >> service interface to the e-commerce offerings > within > >> each of these areas of > >> the bank. They represent the service itself > >> inclusive of the organization > >> requirements, documents, processes, workflows, > etc. > >> > >> So, stop abusing the term SOA and use the correct > >> term for SOA relative to a > >> software system, which is SODA. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: > >> [email protected] > >> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> On Behalf Of Mukund > >> Balasubramanian > >> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:33 PM > >> To: > [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] > Re: > >> SOA Infrastructure > >> > >> Jerry: > >> > >> This is indeed a pretty good description and I > agree > >> with most of it. > >> > >> I don't agree with making as strict a relation as > >> that of a type and > >> instance. I think it is more appropriate to leave > it > >> at the level of > >> defining architecture as the answer to the > question > >> "what are the parts and > >> how do they behave" and design is the answer to > the > >> question "how are the > >> parts actually going to be built". > >> > >> Mukund Balasubramanian > >> CTO/Infravio Inc. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jerry Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: > [email protected] > >> <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Fri Mar 10 08:29:28 2006 > >> Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] > Re: > >> SOA Infrastructure > >> > >> Alex, > >> > >> Many here agree that architecture and design are > two > >> different things and architecture goes before > >> design. > >> Some may think that architecture is just a step > in > >> the > >> design. I disagree. > >> > >> One way to differentiate the two is that > >> architecture > >> is the form or identity or a type. Design is an > >> instance of that type and is a model that > describes > >> how the parts are implemented, what materials are > >> used > >> etc. A car is an identity as opposed to a boat > and > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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/
