Thank you for that partial clarification, Steve. Vikas, as a non-techy I do not understand what you mean exactly by "de-containerize business logic". If you cannot express this in non-technical English or any other relevant human language, it is not going to be much use in getting board approval for a multi-million dollar/Euro SOA project!
I don't think a definition is superfluous at all. It is a reasonable semantic starting point when trying to explain and understand a concept. I also think that your assumption that "The intent of SOA is quite well understood" is frankly optimistic. I suspect that there is not even a consensus on the intent of SOA within this Group, much less in the wider worlds of IT and business. Gervas --- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If I deal with finance I'm assuming certain elements about finance in order > to deal with them, namely that they work within a certain context in the > organisation and are therefore about to do other things directly that I have > to ask them to do. > > Isn't that a form of container? > > > On 26/11/06, Vikas Deolaliker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Why is the definition important? > > > > The intent of SOA is quite well understood, IMHO, i.e. de-containerize > > business logic. If I write business logic that assumes a type of container > > and its services, I am not doing SOA. > > > > The question of who enforces the business logic and who defines it is > > something that we may want to discuss on this forum. > > > > Vikas > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Gervas Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:30:55 AM > > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Another Crack at Defining SOA > > > > No one anywhere in the known universe has yet come up with a > > definition of SOA which commands widespread acceptance. Perhaps it is > > time we had another crack at it. > > > > Over to you ladies and gents... > > > > Gervas > > > > > > > > >
