2008/12/21 Nick Gall <[email protected]>: > 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.
OASIS SOA RM ;) > > Actually, I'll go first. Here's Merriam-Webster's definition of "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. > Exactly so the phrase "SOA is integration" is pretty meaningless and amazingly vague. As this could mean at the file shifting level, interface level, process level, choreography level, event level, team level, organisation level, company level or market level. Although I'd suggest the intention was more old style EAI than abstract. > 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). SOA is a way about thinking about systems as services, those services then need to communicate via the execution context. The EC is the thing that integrates, that is what the technology does in SOA. > > So now let's here the "tight and specific" definition of SOA. Steve > -- Nick >
