"The interactions between the components might be specified in an SO way (service wrappers around non-service capability, sort of)."
After you create a service that encapsulates a component, the interaction happen between services, not components any more. If you put, e.g., a Web Service interface on the component, you have an interaction between components via that interface but it is not a service-oriented interaction - you can put any type of interface on the component and it does not make it a service. This is exact the reason I argue against 'integration=SOA' - integration via interfaces called 'service' does not convert a monolithic application into the service. Unfortunately, many people do exactly this - wrapping monolithic application with Web Services - and claim they have SOA solution. Why then they cannot find SOA benefits from such "SOA" and saying us the SOA fails? Does SOA include integration? Sure, it does. Does integration constitute SOA? No, it does not. I am saying that integration with Web Services/CORBA/RMI/etc. is not SOA yet; there has to be a business orientation first. - Michael ________________________________ From: Rob Eamon <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 2:47:47 PM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Yefim Natis is sure that "SOA is integration" 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 service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, 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
