> I agree in that there is much Service-Oriented Design in SOA, but also quite
> a lot of Architecture. Without a defined architectural framework there is no
> real interoperability, which is the basis of the reuse, agility et al touted
> for SOAs. This is, besides services, to make the system work you need of some
> infrastructure around them, for things like discovery, communications (both
> synchronous and otherwise), management, etc. I.e. the gap originally
> addressed by SOAP, WSDL and UDDI and being now incrementally filled by WS-*.
> For SOAs not based on web services, similar things must exist first in order
> to lay the ground for reuse in practice.
>
> I think there are three levels of architectural detail in any SOA:
>
> 1) The basic one shared by every SOA, i.e.: there are services (implementing
> the business/domain functionality without user interface) and applications
> (without business/domain functionality at all, but with user interface). I
> think there is a general agreement about this simple architecture, except
> maybe some discussion about whether applications and services can invoke
> other services, or whether this is allowed only to ESBs (which would then be
> the third element of the basic architecture, of course).
>
> 2) The level addressed by the assorted Reference Architectures used nowadays
> by different software vendors, involving elements like "legacy services",
> "service buses" or "registries". There is some degree of convergence here but
> by far no consensus yet.
>
> 3) The concrete architecture of a particular running SOA which details what
> and which are these legacy services, buses or whatever, if any.
>
> To have a running SOA you must first make a decision about the three levels,
> and this is architecture, because Service Models do not execute.
>
> By the way, in my humble opinion, the OASIS Reference Model is too abstract
> and generic to be of real use. In order to be so it before should come much
> close to the ground.
>
And if you look into RM paper, there is no architecture diagram of RM.
The one diagram that is there is "How RM relates to other things"....?
regards,
shashank
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> 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/
