I have to say, Anne, that this does make semantic sense. Gervas
--- In [email protected], "Anne Thomas Manes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My perspective: > You use architectural principles to design a system, and you implement the > design. > You don't implement the architecture. > > Anne > > On 7/2/07, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 02/07/07, Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <reamon%40cableone.net>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to get the various views that folks have on a phrase that > > > gives me pause: "implement an SOA" or "SOA implementation." IMO, this > > > phrase is off since an architecture (SOA or otherwise) isn't > > > something one implements. I wonder about the validity of my POV, > > > however. > > > > I'm on the other side of the fence. If you can't implement the > > architecture then its not architecture is just a liberal arts major. > > > > > > > > The reasons I think that support my POV: > > > > > > * While there is no single definition of "architecture" Booch, > > > Rumbaugh and Jacobson state that architecture "is the set of > > > significant decisions about the organization of a software system." > > > Architectural principles are decisions--"when faced with this set of > > > circumstances/needs, this architecture states that the approach shall > > > be X." > > > > Agreed, but I've not seen somewhere that has suggested that > > architecture should be divorced from delivery (except in certain > > toga-wearing architecture groups). > > > > > > > > * Many posts on this forum, as well as various articles and blogs, > > > state that SOA is something you do, not something you buy or build. > > > It follows, then, that it cannot be implemented either. > > > > I'd disagree here "do" means achieving something. Implementing > > doesn't just mean in software however, its about how you organise, > > govern and act as well. This is similar to building architecture > > where the putting bricks on top of each other is just one part of the > > overall vision, and the vision extends after the building has been > > constructed. > > > > > > > > * When used as a term in building construction, architecture seems to > > > be invariably used to describe the attributes or characteristics of > > > the structure. The building itself isn't called "the architecture" > > > nor is it considered an "architectural implementation." > > > > I'd have to go against this again, when an architect defines the plans > > and architecture of the building (e.g. the Gerkin in London) then its > > hard to see how the building isn't the implementation of that > > architecture. > > > > I'd agree that it isn't architectural implementation however (as in > > implementation isn't architecture) but it _is_ the implementation OF > > the architecture. > > > > > > > > * Service orientation is but one of many sets of principles applied > > > to a given system. This is probably a poor analogy but: A car has an > > > engine but I don't refer to the entire car as "the engine" nor as > > > an "engine implementation." :) > > > > Not sure to go with that analogy.... :) > > > > > > The reasons that I question the position: > > > > > > * Brass, Clements and Kazman define architecture as "...comprise[d] > > > [of] software elements, the externally visible properties of those > > > elements, and the relationships among them." Clearly one can > > > implement/instantiate the elements of the architecture so "implement > > > the architecture" doesn't seem completely far fetched. > > > > I'd disagree with this definition as it limits architecture to > > software, which means that hardware, people, practice, process and > > operations are excluded. > > > > > > > > * Many, many people whose opinions I respect often say "SOA > > > implementation." I have a long held belief that architectures > > > aren't "implemented." But perhaps I need to let that view go. > > > > I've always tried to say "Service Oriented Delivery", as in the > > architecture provides the bounds, constraints and vision and then the > > SOD is about delivering the IT that matches to the architecture. > > > > > > > > I'm quite interested in hearing other points of view. > > > > Mine is that if architecture can't be implemented then it is pointless. > > > > > > > > -Rob > > > > > > > > > > >
