Good question. But it can be well answered in line of evolutionary standpoint. That is, we must be clear the features of the technologies before service technology. OO Objects are a central idea in COM or COM objects are built on OO objects hence COM inherits all features of Object technology(encapsulation, polymorphism, and inheritance). Therefore COM is objected oriented. If it's asking "are COM objects exactly like objects in languages like C++?" The answer is obviously No. The problems COM solves are quite different from those solved by object technologies.
To know unique features Service technology provides, we must first know what features Component technology provides and how are the problems Component technology solves different from those of Object technology. Given the features Component technology provides, what are the new problems service technology solves that Component technology can not solve,and what new features of Service technology can solve the new problems. Jerry --- Hitoshi Ozawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jerry, > Interesting point that you've brought up. We say > it's > object oriented when it supports polymorphism, > inheritance, > encapsulation, and data abstraction. Is there any > comparable > properties necessary for SO? > > H.Ozawa > > Jerry Zhu wrote: > > > I think there is a difference between SW evolution > and > > > > the evolution of a particular SW technology. My > view > > is that newer SW technology is built upon, does > not > > replace, older ones. Object technology is built > upon > > function technology (procedural languages are the > > platforms). Component technology on object > technology > > and Service technoloyg on component technology. > > > > The newer technology uses the previous ones as > > building blocks for its implementation. OO objects > > will use functions to implement their methods and > CO > > objects will use OO classes to define their > interfaces > > and implement component classes. Service objects > will > > include Component objects for their > implementation. > > In SW evolution, the new technologies are > inclusive > > hence, inherit features of older technologies. I > saw > > a lot of talks about SOA features here. Most of > them > > belong to component technology such as separation > of > > interfact from implementation while little is > talked > > about the powerful features for SOA only. In what > way > > or how possible for SOA to do more with less. > > > > SW technology is about economics that is to do > more > > with less which is possible by doing different > things. > > Polymorphism is a different thing to do when > > comparing with procedural languages. Style is > about > > alternatives, doing the same thing in alternative > way, > > and often related to cosmetics and luxiury such > life > > style. > > > > One can write polymorphism using C and saying OO > is a > > style by not using Object technology. If so, we do > > less with more. We may not use SOAP, XML, BPEL, > etc > > and say we are implementing SOA, It depends on how > SOA > > is defined or you do less with more. > > > > One can implement SOA based on procedural > languages. > > In this case the two SW evolutionary technologies, > > object technology and component technology, are > > ignore, then either lots of features of Object > > technology and Component technology are missed or > you > > do less with more. > > > > Jerry > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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/
