Rob's "From an architectural perspective, monolithic systems (applications) bridged by SO middleware is just as legitimate
as "pure" services being linked by the same middleware approach." - is a pure technological view and it has nothing to do with Service Orientation, unfortunately. - Michael ________________________________ From: Rob Eamon <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 10:17:47 PM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Yefim Natis is sure that "SOA is integration" Anne wrote: > indicate, "SOA" works well for integration. I put "SOA" into quotes, > though, because I assert that these integration case studies are not > examples of service oriented architecture (SOA). The are examples of > service oriented integration (SOI). i.e., they are examples of > projects that used service oriented protocols (e.g., WS-*) and > middleware (e.g., ESB) to integrate two or more application systems. > But from an architectural perspective, you still have monolithic > systems bridged by integration middleware. Right. SO principles applied to integration architecture. Which is perfectly legit, IMO. SOA is not reserved for EA level definitions, IMO, though I know many subscribe to that view. SOA isn't an architecture. It's a style applied to architectures such as EA, IA, AA, BA, etc. I agree that most case studies under the "SOA" banner are case studies about an integration architecture. They *are* examples of SOA, IMO. From an architectural perspective, monolithic systems (applications) bridged by SO middleware is just as legitimate as "pure" services being linked by the same middleware approach. -Rob
