I posted my own response on my blog, as well, but since I pretty much said the same thing that Anne did, I didn't send it out to group. All of you are subscribers to my blog, anyway, right? :)
Anyway, Rob's question is an interesting one. The only technology that comes to mind for me, which is probably direct analogous to your manual versus automatic transmission, is the orchestration engine versus the application server. At the architectural stage, you need to be able to break the problem down so you know when a BPM/ orchestration engine should be used, and where you should be writing Java/C# code. While both activities are service development activities, the models of how you go from development to production are quite different, as well as the long term cost of maintaining and updating it. Outside of this one, however, I can't come up with any other examples. Everything else winds up being more about how we partition the functional capabilities rather than the technology used to implement those functional capabilities. -tb http://www.biske.com/blog/ On Sep 5, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Rob Eamon wrote: > Interesting thoughts. Technology impacts that detailed design. Sounds > reasonable. > > At what point, if ever, does a technology have an impact on the high- > level design? The example that pops into my head, albeit probably a > poor one, is a manual transmission vs. an automatic transmission in a > car. Obviously at a high level the difference can be abstracted away > as simply "the car will have a transmission, which transfers the > engine power...." Auto vs. stick being deferred to later design > phases. > > But I wonder if the differences between auto and manual transmission > were ever at a point that they needed to be accounted for much > earlier in the analysis/design? Are there any IT technologies that > have a such an impact that they impact the highest levels of a design- > -e.g. the architecture? > > Conversely, would the use of certain technologies cause some to > dismiss a solution as not being "true SOA" (whatever "true SOA" is)? > For example, if I choose, for whatever reason, to use flat-files, FTP > and file directory interaction as the "stuff in the middle", would > that be considered non-SOA? > > -Rob > > --- In [email protected], "Anne Thomas > Manes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> My response is here: >> http://apsblog.burtongroup.com/2007/09/when-technology.html >> >> Anne >> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
