If the systems do not expose their communication points via a WS or REST interface and somebody has to do some work to put them on and connect internally, this is the 3-rd party work, this is integration. If systems can communicate via WS or REST w/o additional "hooking", the interfaces are natural.
We cannot say how effective communication/integration is based on this info. I do agree with you. - Michael ----- Original Message ---- From: Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 11:06:05 PM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Legacy into SOA (was Vandersluis on a Data Abstraction Layer's Benefits) Would you count lobbing a WS or REST interface as being "natural" or "3rd party"? For me doing that still doesn't mean you have an effective integration approach you have to think a little bit longer before putting the string in place. Steve 2008/7/2 Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>: > When systems cannot interact with each other but we need them doing this, we > use integration. Thus, are the interaction and integration the same things? > > When I talked about a 3rd party for integration, I meant not a broker but > somebody building the integration (since the parties could not interact on > their own). Looks like this 3-rd party and associated process of building > integration is the major difference between natural interaction and > interaction based on integration. When integration is done and systems > interact, there is no difference (though, in this case, the interaction is > provided by the means that do not belong to neither of the participants) . > When an broker is used in the middle, it does not seems to me as an explicit > interaction. > > - Michael > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@ gmail.com> > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 5:09:13 AM > Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] Re: Legacy into SOA (was > Vandersluis on a Data Abstraction Layer's Benefits) > > I actually thought that this was the spaghetti definition of > integration, multiple systems all connecting directly giving and n^n > complexity. > > Its certainly still integration but quite often its the worst form. > > Steve > > 2008/7/1 Todd Biske <todd.biske@ gmail. com>: >> Rob wrote, in response to Michael: >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>> IMO. App A and App B talking to each >>>>> via any number of direct means is still integration. Same goes >>>>> for provider x and provider y. . >>>> >>>> I do not think we reach an agreement in this ever. >>> >>> Not surprising. Not many agree with me on that particular point--it's >>> viewed as too generic a definition of integration. >>> >> I agree with you Rob. I don't think an integration requires having a >> third party involved, that's just one technique. >> -tb >> >> Todd Biske >> http://www.biske. com/blog >> Sent from my iPhone >> > >
