You're exactly right. Here are some of the disagreements of the past:
* SOA is an architecture vs. SOA is an architectural style * SOA applies only to EA (is an EA) vs. SOA applies to any level * SOA is based on client-server vs. not the same at all * Reuse is the primary focus vs. use is the focus * Governance is important vs. governance is way over-emphasized * SOA is (at least in part) an integration approach vs. SOA isn't integration by any stretch of the imagination * SOA isn't about technology at any level (the technology part is something else entirely) vs. SOA must consider technology * Services can have UIs vs. services never have UIs And more. SOA is definitely an ambiguous term. The only real agreement that exists is that "services" are somehow involved. The rest is hit or miss. For "shareable, swappable and modular" there are many ways to address those, not just SO. Though I'm not the most well-travelled person, I have never seen "swappable" work in any meaningful way regardless of approach. -Rob --- In service-orientated- [email protected], "jackignatius" <jackignat...@...> wrote: > > This is a very close approximation of reality. It is not all that > complicated, right? Let's agree! > > As the author of the piece that started this discussion I should > unveil the fact that the original article said many more things > than "Integration is SOA" or some such - and that Mr. Natis, who I > quoted actually said many things beyond 'SOA is integration.' > during the course of his Las Vegas presentation. > > One thing that the article said explicitly was "Several years into > the SOA era of application and integration development, SOA > continues on without a full consensus opinion of what SOA is." > > And I cannot say that the present discussion does not buttress such > an assertion. > > The article also paraphrased Elvis Costello who asked 'What's so > funny about peace, love and understanding?" > > In this case the question is: 'What's so funny - or complicated, or > hard to get - about shareable, swappable and modular?' >
