2008/9/26 JP Morgenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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.
You had me on the first thing, but not on the last. Its hard to imagine a physical service container for "HR" which I would argue is a very valid business support service or "Manufacturing" which is a valid business service. > > Now, all we need to do is start a debate on what we want to put in > the SOA container. Does it matter what is in the container or just that there is a standard way of describing the interactions that can be had with the container. Steve > > 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 >> >
