Jim Alateras wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Another way of saying this may be that SOA is so general as to be
>> nearly meaningless. Very few assumptions can be based on the typical
>> definition of SOA. Better to make assumptions even if they are bad
>> assumptions, because then they can be tested, analyzed, and improved.
>>
> I have to disagree with the first part of this paragraph. There are
> several models out there including the SOA-RM which provide a good
> foundation for discussing the various aspects of SOA.
>
But if there are several models, are they all similar enough to make SOA
meaningful as a term?
Which model is your preferred option and does it match everyone elses
preferred option?
If SOA can imply any one of the models you're aware of plus a pile of
others that you don't know about but are used by others, how is the term
meaningful outside of a single persons reasonings?
Dan.
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/
