I'm a big fan of testable definitions. In fact, if it's not testable I don't consider it a definition. So let's have a look for testable assertions in here...
On 1/22/07, Selwyn Akintola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "SOA is a business centric software design paradigm characterised by > the utilisation of well defined standards and protocols Ok, standardization is testable, but some more precision would be useful because if messages contained one non-standard extension, would it still be SOA? *What* is standardized is important. > to create > services and compose applications from services. That's not testable. > SOA mandates that > services are loosely coupled Loosely coupled how? Exactly what concerns need to be separated? > and communicate through the exchange of > messages So if services communicate via a third party (e.g. blackboard or pub/sub style) that's not SOA? Indeed, hiding the identity of services provides an important degree of loose coupling. > thereby allowing resource sharing and reuse. Not testable. > Interoperability and platform independence allow the composition of > applications from services created using heterogeneous resources and > hosted on heterogeneous technology platforms. That seems mostly testable, except for "interoperability" which seems to be redundant due to the aforementioned requirement of standardization. > SOA is a long term > organization wide cross functional collaborative activity whose ROI > will be achieved by service reuse and efficiencies gained by better > alignment IT with business." This doesn't even appear an attempt to define anything, so you could probably remove it. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
