But they still need to understand both the vocab, syntax and the semantics of the interaction which requires more communication, blind integration is an entertaining pastime that I've seen companies engage in, its quite stunning some of the issues it can bring.
I think natural should also require a shared context. Steve 2008/7/3 Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 >>> >> >> > >
