I'd argue that most services are more or less independent. And are likely in various ownership domains. IMO, *most* (if not close to all) service interactions are an example of integration.
IMO, orchestration and choreography are both types of full-blown integration. SOA is fundamentally about structuring capability such that it can be used by other components. That, at its roots, is integration. But instead of us endlessly debating "it is about integration" vs. "it isn't about integration" let's ask this question--what are the real impacts if it is one or the other? What will an architect do differently if SOA "is" integration vs. if SOA "isn't" integration? IMO, nothing. The integration (or interaction if you prefer) aspect, which is embodied by exposed, documented interfaces, is present simply by following SO principles. I recall there was some significant discussion about choreography vs. orchestration but I didn't pay close attention. Can you list the 2 SO principles that choreography violates? By "suitable for aggregate services only" do you mean suitable for service implementation? -Rob --- In [email protected], Michael Poulin <m3pou...@...> wrote: > > I agree with " Integrations have interactions. > Interactions are not always within the context of an integration" > This means that service interaction is not necessary integration, > right? > Even more, orchestration is the example of the interaction w/o > integration while choreography is the example of very strong > integration. (BTW, since choreography violates 2 SO Principles, I > think it is suitable for aggregate services only) > > Thus, SOA is not about integration but about interaction, IMO, and > Mr. Yefim Natis' opinion is incorrect. > > - Michael
