Actually, I like where this thread is going. We could easily make the assertion that SOA is the container itself and that the items contained in the architectural container encompass service-orientation. Hence, we can focus on what we want to put in the container and stop arguing about what the container is called. Thus, SOA asserts itself as a thing, but has no discriminate attributes, but is the aggregation of the contained items' attributes.
The other interesting side-effect of making this assertion is that there's a 1:1 correlation between the concept of SOA as a container and a physical service container that would be used to implement an SOA design. Now, all we need to do is start a debate on what we want to put in the SOA container. JP On Fri Sep 26 11:14:40 CDT 2008, Shashank Dutt Jha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> --- In [email protected], "Kirstan >> >> Vandersluis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > --- In [email protected], "Rob >> Eamon" >> > <reamon@> wrote: >> > > >> > > SOA is not an architecture. It is a style. >> > >> > I would maintain that SOA is a "thing", an architecture with a >> > particular style. >> >> I don't disagree that architecture is a thing. Where we may >> disagree >> is whether or not "SOA" is an architecture. I contend it is not. > > Most of the confusion I assume stems from the name SOA : Service > Oriented Architecture itself. > > Unless we have more appropriate name to refer to what SOA intends > to > in principal, it will continue to create confusion and > unnecessary/repeated debates over what it is and what not. > > regards, > shashank >
