> technology based on the specific service's requirements... Obviously
> it's a good idea to establish some policies regarding technology
> selection. You don't want every developer to use a different beast
> -- the system will quickly get chaotic.
What about the whitespace between the services? For example the Irish
Public Services Broker has been discussed here very briefly. That
design allows (as I understand it) services to be implemented many
different ways, but every service communicates via a pair of
asynchronous queues, input and output.
Again, as far as I understand it, the PSB supports many different
technologies for queue interfaces. But each service requestor and
provider is independent of the others, and the technology for one pair
of queues is independent of the technology for another pair of queues.
That seems a reasonable foundation, i.e. an architecture that is
independent of technology, yet can facilitate the evolution of
technology as well as the evolution of service design from
"service-enabling" legacy systems to providing and building new
services more ideally.
It seems in the case of the PSB it is the architecture that controls
the chaos. The architecture pushes the technology to the edges. It
also does specify message formats, etc. as XML corresponding to
certain formats, etc. So translation, etc. also happens at the edges.
-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.
