I concur with both Anne and Radovan's comments and suggestions as to
what SOA is all about. However I would point out that reuse does not
conveniently fall out of service catalogues, repositories or anything
like that. Reuse can only happen through design and nothing in ESB's or
anything I have heard thus far seems to support the role of the
Architect who designs the system (a system being a collection of
services that perform some well define business task). I'd love to
think that UML does it but it doesn't because it cannot deal with
distribution.

So I guess I am saying that if you go into SOA in order to get reuse do
not expect direct help in determining what to reuse from any tools such
as UDDI repositories/registries/ESB's or indeed anything that I have
seen (and I have seen quite a lot). Perhaps the assembled masses have
some suggestions, but I think it is likely that it is a methodological
approach supported by the right tools and languages that is required to
help us get reuse in any sensible fashion.

Cheers

Steve T

On 9 May 2006, at 12:38, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:

>  While I agree with Radovan's recommendations regarding getting
> control of your services, he neglected to mention some of the core
> characteristics of a service, or to explain the basic SOA design
> principles.
>
> SOA is an architectural style of design that is defined by a set of
> design principles.
>
> As implied by the name, the primary SOA design principle is
> service-orientation. This principle dictates that if a piece of
> functionality is required by multiple applications, then the
> functionality should be refactored and implemented as a shared,
> reusable service rather than duplicated in each application.
> A service, therefore, is a representation of this functionality that
> can be shared by multiple applications. A service exposes it
> functionality through a well-defined interface. Service consumers
> (i.e., applications) use the interface to gain access to the
> functionality.
>
> The opposite of SOA is monolithic application silos where
> functionality and data must be duplicated in each application that
> requires them.
>
> SOA is fundamentally different from integration. SOA is about breaking
> down application silos. Integration is about reinforcing silos and
> duplicating data.
>
> ESBs are tactical integration solutions. They don't provide facilities
> that help you refactor functionality. You can use an ESB to provide
> connectivity among services, but using an ESB does not give you
> "instant" SOA. SOA is something you do, not something you buy.
>
> And by the way -- you don't need an ESB to do SOA. Yes -- it's a
> useful tool to have in your toolbox -- especially if you want to
> expose legacy application functionality as a service. But it's still
> just raw materials. It's like lumber. You can have a wonderful stack
> of lumber, but that won't give you a house. To get a house, you need a
> design, and you need some hard work.
>
> And Jerry's comment is not entirely accurate. Prior to 1998, you can
> be certain that MQSeries messages usually carried binary data --
> sometimes in a standard format (e.g., ASN1), sometimes not. But
> there's no reason why MQSeries (now WebSphere MQ) can't transfer XML.
> And I suspect that most new MQ applications exchange XML now.
>
> Meanwhile, ESBs don't always carry XML. About two-thirds of ESB
> products are MOM-based, and these MOM systems can carry binary data as
> well as XML.
>
> Anne
>
> On 5/9/06, Radovan Janecek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:In SOA,
> the primary abstraction is the Service. You have good SOA, if you
> answer yes to questions such:
>>  
>> Is every service uniquely  identified?
>>  
>> Can users easily find available services?
>>  
>> Is every service well described from business perspective?
>>  
>> Can any developer easily find all technical specifications of the
>> service (interfaces, policies, etc.) to build a composite
>> application?
>>  
>> Does every service provider have a sufficient control over who is
>> using his/her service?
>>  
>> Is it possible to measure and report service reuse?
>>  
>> Is it possible to define and impose enterprise wide (or just
>> reasonably wide) standards for how services are described? (what
>> business schemas they can use, security mechanisms, SLAs, and
>> similar)
>>  
>> Can you well automate auditing of the services conformance to these
>> standards?
>>  
>> Most (if not all) of these questions suggest to start SOA
>> implementation with establishing a service catalog that provides the
>> visibility of services and their descriptions. Even if you start with
>> ESB you should not miss the catalog part.
>>  
>> Radovan
>>
>>  
>>
>> On 5/9/06, Jerry Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Both MQSeries and
>> ESB transfer messages.  The messages
>>>  in MQSeries are binary data while the messages in ESB
>>>  are XML data.  Those messages are, to me, at different
>>>  levels of inter software communication. 
>>>
>>>  I hear people say they are using SOA becase there are
>>>  XML messages passing around.  XML has been around for
>>>  a long time but SOA is relative new. SOA is more than
>>>  passing XML messages.  There maybe minimum
>>>  requirements in an architecture to be called SOA. So
>>>  how to tell a SW architecture that is SOA or not?
>>>
>>>  Jerry
>>>
>>>
>>>  --- Stuart Charlton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  > Let me correct myself and say "transfer" protocol
>>>  > instead of transport.  Utimately, they're a way of
>>>  > moving bits with various differences in reliability,
>>>  > performance, available message exchange patterns,
>>>  > schemes to describe resources.
>>>  >
>>>  > My point is that an ESB should be independent of
>>>  > transfer protocol.  It looks at transfer protocols
>>>  > in a modular way and can make it quite easy for a
>>>  > user to mediate between MQSeries inbound and  HTTP
>>>  > POST outbound, or SMTP inbound and MQSeries
>>>  > outbound, adapting between varying message exchange
>>>  > patterns, levels of reliability, credential
>>>  > declarations, etc.
>>>  >
>>>  > Stu
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > ----- Original Message ----
>>>  > From: patrickdlogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>  > To: [email protected]
>>>  > Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2006 10:39:39 PM
>>>  > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re:
>>>  > MQSeries vs. ESB
>>>  >
>>>  >    > In this case MQSeries is just a transport...
>>>  > 
>>>  >  Isn't MQSeries more than that? i.e. MQSeries moves
>>>  > things from here to
>>>  >  there, but in various ways, asynchronously, with
>>>  > queue-based
>>>  >  semantics, etc. That seems to be much more than
>>>  > "just a transport".
>>>  > 
>>>  >  > As is HTTP, FTP, SMTP, etc.
>>>  > 
>>>  >  And so aren't these more like MQSeries than they
>>>  > are like "any other
>>>  >  transport"? i.e. they move things from here to
>>>  > there, but in various
>>>  >  ways, with certain rules and expectations about
>>>  > sequence,
>>>  >  sychronicity, identification, etc.
>>>  > 
>>>  >  > I found this view drastically simplifies a lot of
>>>  > the confusion
>>>  >  > around an ESB's role in an SOA...
>>>  > 
>>>  >  It seems like an oversimplification to me.
>>>  > 
>>>  >  -Patrick
>>>  > 
>>>  > 
>>>  > 
>>>  > 
>>>  > 
>>>  > 
>>>  > 
>>>  >            
>>>  >
>>>  >         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. 
>>>  >     
>>>  >      
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>
>>>
>>>  __________________________________________________
>>>  Do You Yahoo!?
>>>  Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 .
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Radovan Janecek
>>  http://radovanjanecek.net/blog
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>






SPONSORED LINKS
Computer software Computer aided design software Computer job
Soa Service-oriented architecture


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to