On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:18 AM, Steve Jones <[email protected]> wrote:> Define integration in a tight and specific way.
Hey, I asked first! <grin> You define SOA in a "tight and specific way" first. Actually, I'll go first. Here's Merriam-Webster's definition of "integrate<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrate> " (since "integration" is merely the act, process, or instance of integrating): "to form, coordinate, or blend into a functioning or unified whole : unite". That's pretty tight and specific: any whole composed of parts is an integration -- even if those parts are processes, services, thoughts, stars, or unicorns and no matter what way in which they are united. And integration can be done in many different ways: ad hoc, post hoc, a priori. It can be well or poorly architected. It can be well governed or poorly. As long as it unites different entities to some degree, regardless of the quality of the unification, it's integration. So perhaps SOA is a particular way of forming parts into a whole? That is, if SOA is anything at all. If it is indeed a particular way of forming parts into a whole, then SOA is, if not all about integration, then at least a type, way, or style of integration (or if you prefer, an approach to integration). So now let's here the "tight and specific" definition of SOA. -- Nick
