Really? What part of my post had anything to do with technology? My use of "application" and "middleware" may be technology oriented but I used those terms purely for common understanding, not because an EA identifies applications and middleware.
I'll take another tack: the primary components of an architecture do not need to be services (a common legacy constraint). The interactions between the components might be specified in an SO way (service wrappers around non-service capability, sort of). I know I keep singing the same refrain, but SOA is not an architecture. It is a style. SO principles are not the sole domain of EA. They can be applied to any level of architecture. -Rob --- In [email protected], Michael Poulin <m3pou...@...> wrote: > > 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
