I am glad you sorted that out, Steven. I have almost indulgent memories of Georges Pompidou from my youth - a French President with a self-deprecating sense of humour and a Winston cigarette drooping from the corner of his mouth like a wasted joey hanging onto the edge of the pouch after its first tinnie.
Gervas --- In [email protected], Steve Ross-Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BTW I forget the correct spelling is "Pompidou". Apologies. > > On 16 Mar 2006, at 09:29, Steve Ross-Talbot wrote: > > > I think it is wholly unhelpful to mix these terms. Let me explain > > further. There is a famous building in Paris (the Pompideux centre). > > It > > is a building that has an architecture which is something that > > architects produced. It's infrastructure is visible on the outside of > > the building - unusual because most are embedded or on the inside. The > > architecture was the blue print by which the structural engineers and > > builders delivered what was required. The architecture simply stated > > that the infrastructure was to be put on the outside and gave a clear > > description of what that meant. > > > > Clearly we do not talk about the architecture infrastructure of the > > Pompidu Centre being on the outside. We do talk about the > > infrastructure being on the outside. The danger is that we further > > promote poor understanding as to what is meant by architecture and we > > confuse it with infrastructure. Only this week I heard a CEO confuse > > the two thinking that the infrastructure was the architecture. > > > > Whilst I am on the topic I would like to make sure we are all of one > > mind. Architecture is not something that we do. It is not a verb. It > > is > > an artifact that is produced in the course of building a system. > > According to TOGAF it is "A formal description of a system". According > > to UML it "the organizational structure of a system". Architecting is > > something that Architects do and the output of what they do is an > > Architecture. I suggested at Web Services on Wall Street and I have > > still to hear anyone counter this - I'd love to have a debate and > > learn > > new tricks from those more learned than I - that there is not A in > > SOA. > > There is no clear, precise way within the accepted tools sets that can > > be said to define the SOA space, that are being used or can be used to > > "formally describe a system" or to describe "the organizational > > structure of a system". > > > > It would be very nice if in this group of interested parties we could > > actually establish what we mean by architecture and then be clear > > about > > how this might differ from the prevailing wisdom of TOGAF, UML, OMG > > and > > others. And if it doesn't how one might actually encode an > > Architecture. Is UML sufficient? Can we describe all of the > > interactions that occur between a set of services using UML in an > > unambiguous way? Could we do with BPEL or BPMN? Could we do with > > WS-CDL? > > > > Why should we care? Pretty simple really. When you Architect in the > > world of civil engineering, electrical engineering and so on, you use > > a > > formal description of the system (not all the detail but enough) to > > simulate and test. This is how Architects find that the stress levels > > on a specific beam are too high or find that they have over specified > > some tolerance can reduce the cost of a component. Without such a > > description this cannot be done. I would content that we should do the > > same in software. If you cannot write down your Architecture then you > > do not know enough about what you are doing, and you will have a high > > risk of failure because of this. > > > > I believe we can do better and make the dream of SOA a reality in a > > lower cost and lower risk way. In effect I think we can put the A back > > into SOA as opposed to continual talk of SOA when we really only mean > > Service Orientation - which is a step higher than Object-Orientation. > > > > The above rantings are not just the work of a demented long in the > > tooth perhaps should retire too old software guy. Rather they are an > > extract of many discussions with many practicing Architects who > > deliver > > real systems (not software products) that deliver real business > > benefit > > to real customers. > > > > Thoughts please ......... > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve T > > > > On 15 Mar 2006, at 13:56, Ron Schmelzer wrote: > > > > > So, what exactly is architecture infrastructure? Aren't these two > > > different things... does it make sense to even combine these two > > words > > > together? > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > Anne Thomas Manes wrote:Gregg, > > >> > > >> A SOA infrastructure [sorry JP, but I think this term is useful] > > >> ought to support any type of communication style: synchronous vs > > >> asynchronous, request/response vs one-way, direct connection vs > > >> brokered, queued, pub/sub, Linda, etc. It's even better if the > > >> infrastructure is natively supported by most development platforms. > > >> > > >> I think this last point is the most serious downfall for J/JS. You > > >> had the luxury of developing your own communication infrastructure, > > >> and you chose to base it on J/JS. (I think this was a great > > decision > > >> for you.) Most organizations don't have that luxury, though. For > > >> them, software infrastructure development is not a core competency. > > >> So they buy it. And because a communication infrastructure is such > > a > > >> critcal component in their IT systems, they tend to buy it from > > >> solid, stable vendors -- IBM, Microsoft, BEA, Oracle, SAP, etc. > > None > > >> of these vendors provide native support for J/JS (or any Linda > > system > > >> for that matter). > > >> > > >> I've always been a big fan of Linda, but you must agree that it's > > a > > >> fringe technology. It's been around for ever, but never been a part > > >> of the mainstream. The key advantage I see for using SOAP as the > > >> foundation for SOA is that *everyone* provides native support for > > the > > >> technology. > > >> > > >> Anne > > >> > > >> On 3/14/06, Gregg Wonderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anne Thomas Manes > > >> wrote: > > >>> > I understand that the JERI stack opens J/JS up to allow > > >>> integration with > > >>> > other languages and protocols, but there are a number of > > features > > >>> in J/JS > > >>> > which are available only to Java applications. > > >>> > > >>> There are a number of Web services features that are only > > available > > >>> to web > > >>> services applications. > > >>> > > >>> Where is the line drawn to differentiate?  I am not sure what > > >>> missing features > > >>> you think are problematic or which would cause problems.  Can you > > >>> share some > > >>> specific concerns?  This is really an interesting issue for me. > > >>> > > >>> At some point, the technology of choice is visible in your > > SOA.  The > > >>> proliferation of a technology into your software implementation > > is a > > >>> technical/implementation issue which needs attention. > > >>> > > >>> Gregg Wonderly > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> __________ NOD32 1.1431 (20060305) Information __________ > > >> > > >> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > > >> http://www.eset.com > > >> > > >> > > >> __________ NOD32 1.1431 (20060305) 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. > > > > > 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/
