Steve, I agree that if we're talking about SOA, the business concept, REST and WS-* and CORBA and whatever become (almost) irrelevant details. So in a discussion about the "business architecture", as you call it, they have no place. Surely this doesn't mean it's not useful to discuss technology and software architectures anymore? If it were, we should not be debating "business architecture", but rather what to do about world hunger, or the wars in the world, or democracy in China ...
Stefan -- Stefan Tilkov, http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/ On Jun 8, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Steve Jones wrote: > Nope. The point I'd stress is the one you've made here is that > this is about SOFTWARE architectures. The point I've made over and > over again is that part of the IT problem is that we are still > looking at the software level and we aren't moving upwards towards > the business architecture. So one of the reasons I make the > comments I do is that I look from a business service perspective > and assess whether at that level there is any different between > approaches. > > The basic test is "if I replaced this with flying monkeys, and it > worked, would the business care" and for any competent software > architecture the answer is "no", the question on software > architecture is competence not perfection and too often in IT we > become obsessed with IT perfection to the detriment of business > competence. > > > On 08/06/07, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, I thought I said we wouldn't discuss REST in this thread, > Eric! 8-) > > But I interpret your "Yes" there as agreeing with me, that these are > useful models for evaluating architectures and architectural styles. > Does anybody *dis*agree? > > Mark. > > > > On 6/8/07, Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes but the problem starts when comparing theory to practice - > the discussion tends to compare Web services as they are > implemented with REST as its defined in a thesis. > > > > Lots of implemented HTTP is not RESTful, either. > > > > Eric > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2007 4:07:09 PM > > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Software architecture > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps we can all step back for a second... > > > > Let's - for a moment at least 8-) - forget about REST, WS-*, SOA, > > etc.. and just talk about software architecture. Pete laid out a > > summary (below) of how, IMO, it all works: how constraints on the > > relationship between architectural elements induce certain > > architectural properties. > > > > Can we agree that this is a useful way for evaluating > architectures & > > architectural styles? Or more exactly, can we agree that papers like > > Perry & Wolf's "Foundations" , or chapter 1 of Roy Fielding's > > dissertation, describe useful evaluation methodologies? > > > > Mark. > > > > On 6/7/07, Peter Lacey <[EMAIL PROTECTED] que.com> wrote: > > > I'll admit to a little trolling, but this is not hyperbole, it > is not a > > > matter of opinion, and it is not a blanket statement based on > religious > > > fervor. The fact is that there is a paper out there -- you know > the one > > > -- that analyzes all prevalent means of distributed computing > and teases > > > out the properties they exhibit and the design factors that > brought > > > about those properties. Then, emphasizing "constraint and > understanding > > > of the system context," applies those design factors > (constraints) to a > > > new architectural style such that the end result is a system that > > > provably! exhibits the properties desired. Those properties being > > > separation of concerns, scalability, reliability, visibility, > > > performance, simplicity, and evolvability. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see > what's on, when. > > > >
