To my understanding, you can link/integrate even technical components in certain style that makes 'integrated' entities to be capable of serving in accordance to the SO principles. The resulting entities are SOA services not because of used integration but because of SO principles preserved during the design and implementation. This is why I against the motto: "SOA is integration"
- Michael ________________________________ From: Steve Jones <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 6:33:39 PM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Yefim Natis is sure that "SOA is integration" Agreed, what it means is that Integration is _technology_ and about linking the consumer to the producer, therefore it has a place to play in an SO world, and that place is in a nice little box called the EC. Its why technology is secondary in an SO world. Steve 2008/12/22 Michael Poulin <m3pou...@yahoo. com>: > Sure, EC is where the service has to interoperate with the environment. > However, this still does not mean that SOA is integration. > - Michael > ____________ _________ _________ __ > From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@ gmail.com> > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 9:43:24 AM > Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] Re: Yefim Natis is sure that > "SOA is integration" > > In the OASIS SOA RM the integration piece sits in the Execution Context. > > Steve > > 2008/12/22 Rob Eamon <rea...@cableone. net>: >> --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael Poulin >> >> <m3pou...@.. .> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, we need definition for integration. >>> >>> To me, integration constitutes tying things together. >> >> +1. An SO architecture definition will describe a mechanism for doing >> exactly that in a consistent and robust way. The architecture defines >> how the components are tied together. >> >> -Rob >> >> > >
