I wonder what happened to this discussion? I've been looking around for a comprehensive definition and discussion on Composite Application Development wrt SOA and I can't find anything on the web except this one!
I liked Jeff's definition, though I'm struggling to fit it into the "bigger picture" of EAI and ESBs. -Kunal --- In [email protected], Todd Biske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So far, I have not had the need to use this term. I do speak to the > notion of composition often, but only in the context of composite > services. I've never referred to composite application development. > > I have a couple reasons for this. First off, if it were up to me, > I'd do away with the term application altogether. It is most > frequently associated with something that is user-facing. I'm as big > of a usability and user-centered design proponent as anyone, but we > really need to separate the concerns of what the user interacts with > from where systems need to interact. When the two are bundled > together, it imposes constraints that have a high risk of impacting > the service design. I always refer to IT efforts these days as > "solution development." > > The second reason is around what is implied by composition. While it > doesn't have to mean this, I've always associated it with building a > more coarse-grained service from more fine-grained services. If I'm > not building a new service, I wouldn't consider it composition. I > prefer the term "assemble" but this is pretty nit-picky on the > semantics. > > Perhaps the biggest issue is that I don't see this as anything new > that needs a new term. To be successful with SOA, we must change how > we develop solutions. We'll still be developing solutions, however, > and I don't think we need another term for it. Perhaps we should > just call it Application Development 2.0. :) > > As for your definition, the only thing I had heartburn with was the > inclusion of intermediaries in the list of things being loosely > coupled. Developers should be aware of the purpose of the > intermediary, but they're not explicitly writing code to speak with > it. If they were, it wouldn't be an intermediary, it would be an > endpoint. > > As more food for thought, how would you go about differentiating > between portal development and composite application development? I > think the portlet metaphor is much closer to what I think of as > composite application development. That's because of my above > reasoning, however. A portal is composing smaller units of user > interface logic (portlet) into a larger, integrated user interface. > > -tb > > On Jun 4, 2006, at 10:20 AM, jeffrschneider wrote: > > > Personally, I have end-of-lifed the term "SODA" or "Service Oriented > > Development of Applications" and gone with what I believe is the more > > popular term, "Composite Application Development" (which already has > > multiple definitions). > > > > I'm interested to hear your views on what CAD is. To get the ball > > rolling, here is my first cut edition: > > > > "Composite Application Development is a style of software development > > that loosely couples clients, intermediaries, services and components > > to create user and process centric software solutions leveraging the > > principles, patterns and technologies associated with Service Oriented > > Architecture." > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ------------------- - > > ~--> > > Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page > > now. > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/NhFolB/TM > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- > > ~-> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
