--- In [email protected], "Anne Thomas Manes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't call you out on this because I agree with you. Although I > object to the use of the phrase "an SOA" -- SOA is not a thing. SOA > is something you do, not something you build. As you say, SOA is a > set of design principles. I guess I was being a bit loose and ambiguous with my wording. I agree 110% that SOA is not a "thing" in terms an implementation or an infrastructure, etc. My intent with "an SOA" in this context was the SOA definition/description itself--the set of principles, concepts and logical components (e.g. "a service provider component has these characteristics..."). I'm usually more careful about using "SOA" as a stand-alone term, preferring "SOA definition" or "SOA description" or "SOA principles." This one slipped through my editorial filter!! :-) > You "do" SOA by applying these principles in a design project. Yes, yes, yes! > ... > SOA places not constraints on interaction models. (The idea that > earlier "versions" of SOA didn't support event-driven interactions > stems from an inappropriate association between SOA and WS-*.) Hmmm. Interesting. I thought the presumed constraint was more due to an assumption that service-oriented implied a request/reply interaction. In fact, Gartner's "Introduction to Service-Oriented Architecture" paper states "Service-oriented architecture is a best- practice architecture pattern for the systematic design of request/reply applications." This would seem to preclude "fire and forget" interactions. Just to play devil's advocate (and to help me understand more about your point) what if I said that SOA principles DO prescribe only a request/reply interaction style? > I'm not sure what you mean by CEP. Complex Event Processing. Tibbling mentioned it in the article that prompted this thread. I've seen it mentioned in several places as "one of the compelling business needs justifying SOA." The folks at Progress/Apama/Sonic seem to be pushing this pretty hard as an "SOA thing." "SOA/ESB finally provides the technologies necessary for CEP." Ugh. > > > Why are we so focused on SOA? Why is *everything* seemingly part > > of SOA? > > Because vendors are trying to sell you stuff. If it's not part of > SOA, then it's part of Web 2.0. You and I seem to have the same disdain for this sort of abuse. :-) > ... > > for focus may make us myopic. Rather than creating an SOA, > > shouldn't we be thinking more broadly? I think it is more > > valuable to create an enterprise architecture that incorporates > > not only SOA principles but other principles as well. > > See my previous comment regarding "SOA is not a thing". Again, my intent here was on the creation of the SOA definition/description for a given enterprise. The focus should be on the creation of an enterprise architecture description (again, just principles, concepts and logical components) that incorporate SOA principles, concepts and logical components. -Rob
