What is the difference between integration and interaction? Maybe this is the way to finally find if SOA is about integration or not. When we gather services into the orchestrated process, it this an integration or interaction?
I would agree with "integration strategy is a side-effect of applying SO principles at the enterprise level" after we find the answer to my question above. To the " Side note: Redundancy isn't always bad and eliminating it isn't always the right course of action. Generally speaking, eliminating redundancy is good but we must be careful about blindly following that principle" - I agree with this in the following interpretation: - if we deal with technical business services that implement business functional services (functions, features, processes), access to particular business service/function/feature has to be guaranteed in the terms of the business operating model. To provide such 'guarantee' we, probably have to have a redundant access to those business service/function/feature implementation. It is not exactly the same as redundant applications that perform the same things (in different ways) but rather several services that have capability to support the same business functionality, on demand. This is the concept; how to implement it - is the art of design. - Michael ________________________________ From: Rob Eamon <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:07:48 PM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Yefim Natis is sure that ""SOA is integration" All good points. SOA is most definitely about architecture. While I wouldn't say "SOA is integration" per se, I'd say that integration is one of the core values of the SO approach. Services have 1 or more interfaces. Interaction with services is via those (and only those) interfaces. Services (and other components such as service clients) exist in independent ownership domains. Those characteristics are the heart of integration. SO demands that one consider integration up front rather than as an afterthought. IMO, integration strategy is a side-effect of applying SO principles at the enterprise level. Side note: Redundancy isn't always bad and eliminating it isn't always the right course of action. Generally speaking, eliminating redundancy is good but we must be careful about blindly following that principle. -Rob --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, "Anne Thomas Manes" <atma...@... > wrote: > > While I agree with the last line, I disagree with the leading one: > "SOA is integration" . Many organizations mistakenly percieve SOA as > an integration strategy. But it is not. SOA is about architecture. > To achieve SOA, you must rearchitect your systems. You must remove > the deadwood. Every organization has too much stuff -- too many > redundant applications and data sources. SOA is about cleaning > house. You will not simplify your environment, reduce costs, and > gain agility until you reduce that redundancy. > > Anne
