I think what Steve said in the previous post is very important. To gain the benefit of service orientation it's important to design and model software systems in terms of functions (services) rather than things (objects) since functions are more naturally aligned with "what we do" as people and businesses.
Given the service abstraction, implementation is a separate issue. As we have heard many times on this list a wide variety of technologies can be used for implementation. The most important thing is to get the design right - meaning to meet the business requirements, to align with the services that the business provides for its customers, or other departments. Eric ----- Original Message ---- From: Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2007 7:58:18 AM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Booch on SOA & Architecture On 2/8/07, Dan Creswell <[EMAIL PROTECTED] org> wrote: > Hmmm, > > "Obviously someone who can't give up objects in favor of services" > > Someone thinking in objects has serious wrong-thinking in terms of > design full stop! RESTful design is largely object-oriented, and I've had no trouble designing very large scale systems using it. REST was at one time called the "HTTP Object Model", in fact. It's also why I've continued to use "distobj" as my email address. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbake r.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus. com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
