--- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" <jones.ste...@...> wrote: > > Rob, > > What I'd say is that the _execution context_ in SOA is the > integration and it is an _enabler_ for consumers and producers to > be brought together, but the integration is not _in itself_ SOA.
Hmm. The second person to think I made this error in definition. Perhaps I've worded somthing poorly. Integration is not in itself SOA. I've never (intentionally) stated such a thing. > In many cases integration is a _required_ facility for the > interaction of consumer and producer but in itself it doesn't > represent either the consumer or the producer. Integration does not mean use of an intermediary. I'm of the opinion that integration is a required capability in *all* cases between consumer and producer. The interaction is inherently an integration. What varies in the implementation is which bits to which piece of work. If all the work is done by consumer and provider, it is still an integration. > To use a WOA analogy, TCP/IP is the enabler but it isn't the REST > bit. I've never stated that integration is SOA. I've never said that SOA is only integration. Integration is but one aspect of SOA. -Rob
