--- In [email protected], "Rob Eamon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > SOA is not an architecture. It is a style.
I would maintain that SOA is a "thing", an architecture with a particular style. It has identifiable characteristics, and can be documented and modeled, just like non-service oriented architectures. Companies want to evolve to an SOA to achieve identifiable goals like business agility and IT cost savings. These goals are ultimately achieved because of the *architecture*, not because of a particular way the architecture was built (although the way it was built will contribute to its success). > It specifies a set of > principles to follow when defining a BA, EA, AA, etc. Those are the > architectures of interest and they will include principles beyond just > SO principles. There is more to an architecture than just service > providers and consumers. > > Architecture as a term refers to both the process and to the end > product. It originally meant only the end product (e.g. the building or > the ship) but has come to also include the "what you do" to create that > product. I will agree architecture is also something you do. But the end resulting architecture seems ultimately much more important, and it is what provides the value. The architecture has to perform and achieve its goals, and its success will be measured against those goals. An SOA that brings business agility and cost savings won't be judged a failure simply because some services were designed around data. -Kirstan
