> I response to Dan's two cents by making three points.
>
> First, technology simply means, as I recall from a
> comprehensive definition, new ways to do (same) things
> with significant improvement or do new things
> impossible in old ways. All computer languages are
> technology platforms. Different computer languages are
> different embodiments of same or different
> technologies. You can go to CA from NY by bike or by
> airplane. Are you saying bike and airplane are the
> same technology?
>
> Second, sw architecture by definition is technology
> dependent and platform independent as we discussed
> before. OO architecture will reflect elements of
> object technology such as inherentance, encapulation,
> polymorphism etc. SOA should contain elements of
Sorry, fundamentally I disagree. Inheritance, encapsulation,
polymorphism etc are design abstractions - i.e. architecture.
They can be _implemented_ in a variety of _technologies_.
You are, IMHO, mixing the conceptual and the physical.
I wonder if you're claiming that architecture is separate from design
and is about mapping from design to implementation. If that's the case,
design still contains all the abstract things as above, architecture is
your technology block diagram and contains your choices for physically
realizing your design concepts (e.g. inheritance).
> service technology whatever the terms we use.
> Architecture defines (not designs) the major elements
> and their relations in a SW. Architecture is not
> technology but only depends on one or more
> technologies. If SOA is something distinct from OO
> architecture then SOA should containt new technology
> elements different from that of OO technology.
>
> Third, aggregation and containment are two ways of SW
> reuse in component (not object) technology because
Sorry, gonna disagree again - GOF (Design Patterns by Gamma and co) is
well known as an OO design book and talks about use of both composition
and aggregation and explains the differences. i.e. they are design
level concepts.
> component technology does not support implementation
> inherentance. See, we have two different technologies
> with different kinds of elements. Service is built on
> components not on objects. That is why we see much
> commonality between components and services. We have
> characterize services in terms of components but not
> much in terms of new technology elements. That is my
> original question what is the new elements of service
> technology that is not in object/component technology?
>
And I think that's the wrong question because I don't like to drive
everything from a technology perspective. I think the correct question
is what design concepts are present in SOA and what, if any, new
technology do we need in order to realize SOA?
Best,
Dan.
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.
