Steve,
I use pictures to describe a system usually. Architecture usually
takes the form of pictures for me. It's a description of the components of a
solution and the relationships between those components. There is no formal
definition for how those relationships get implemented nor is there any formal
definition for how the component gets implemented.
However, SOA is a way to design a system. It's not a style issue, it's
a way to think about what goes into the picture.
JP
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Steve Ross-Talbot
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 4:46 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Trolling for flames
Sounds to me that anything that is "a way to design" is a style. A
style is not an architecture.
Without some way of writing down the design of a distributed system
such a style has no meaning.
The design is what gives it meaning and for me that design starts
having validity when it fulfills the TOGAF
suggestion that an architecture is "a formal description of a system".
I shall review what you have all said but I must admit I do not recall
anything earth shattering but that maybe
because I did not read it or failed to understand it.
I have posed a challenge as to what people use to describe a system and
have yet to see anything back from anyone.
Which I find puzzling.
JP you are pretty well travelled. What do you use? And what about
Gervas, Eric and Todd for that matter. Am I the only
one asking the direct questions?
Cheers
Steve T
On 20 Mar 2006, at 12:16, JP Morgenthal wrote:
> +1. Review the past discussion between myself, Gervas, Eric, & Todd
> on this
> issue. SOA does not have an implicit relationship with SW. As I
> defined in
> the SOA Infrastructure thread, SOA is a way to design any system, be
> it
> software or any other.
>
> JP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> loek_bakker
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 4:26 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Trolling for flames
>
> I think SOA is about more than just SW architecture. That is where
> it differs from OO and CBD for instance. There is a very clear
> business element in SOA (or there should be!) that goes beyond SW
> architecture. To me SOA answers the HOW question that is related to
> the answer to the WHAT question that is described in Enterprise
> Architecture.
>
> --Loek.
>
> --- In [email protected], Jerry Zhu
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > SOA is sw architecture that captures the functional
> > requriements and also poses nonfunctional requriements
> > such as security, scalibility, performance etc.
> > Systems architeucture describes what hosts the
> > operation of what sw architecture describes and what
> > implements the nonfunctional requirements.
> >
> > Jerry Zhu
> >
> > --- loek_bakker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Let's get back to Anne's remark: I don't think SOA
> > > Infrastructure is
> > > the right term. I would name it service-oriented
> > > infrastructure.
> > > Usually an infrastructure is part of an enterprise
> > > architecture, so
> > > to me it does not make sense to name it
> > > service-oriented
> > > architecture infrastructure. So probably I agree
> > > with Ron.
> > >
> > > Loek.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > [email protected],
> > > Jerry Zhu
> > > <jerryyz@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When we talk about architecture we need to be
> > > aware of
> > > > the context. Is it about software application or
> > > > enterprise wide IT planning? Each has different
> > > kinds
> > > > of architectures. In software application, for
> > > > example, there should be three kinds of
> > > architectures:
> > > > data, software, and system. For enterprise, there
> > > > could be more architectures as defined in FEAF.
> > > >
> > > > Infrastructure could refer to technology
> > > architecture
> > > > in EA. It may also refer to application's system
> > > > architecture. When we talk about buildings, there
> > > > maybe only one architecture. Building are things
> > > or
> > > > simple systems. Business or a software system is
> > > a
> > > > complex system that needs to be viewed in
> > > > multi-perspectives, hence multiple architectures.
> > > >
> > > > Jerry Z.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@> 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:
> > > > >
> > >
> > === message truncated ===
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
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/
