Dear Fakhar, My point is that WS is one of possible technologies (it is not a model) that could be used when building service-oriented application, i.e. service. By itself, WS does not constitute any service orientation, which is true for any other types of interfaces. SOA, more accurately - service-oriented solution (SOS, indeed, after Anne's post), may be built with any technology if the builder preserves SO principles. For example, it may be Jini, CORBA, etc. If you have a formal description of the service functionality, its RWE, and its interconnection (interface) means, you may have a repository of descriptions where you can find a service, you can invoke the service w/o any ideas how the service works until it provides for its promises (functional and non-functional), you can combine several services together into new service and set particular order (and rules) of the execution of combined services, i.e. have a process implementation. Thus, you can use any technology if it does not compromise SO principles.
-- Michael ________________________________ From: Fakhar Imran <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 8:25:23 AM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: How to start SOA in Organization Dear all, Thansk a lot for so valuable information. Your comments were informative as well as encourging and I've got an overall idea on how to proceed with SOA. @Ashraf: What I got from your comments is to start with WS, we should adopt in our development environment and we can start implementing them without involvement of the whole Enterprise level Services definintion. Did I get it right? @Jeff: We are already in the process of maturing our SDLC and configuration management processes. What do you mean by "architecture as a discipline"? Are you talking about EA? @Michael: >>When I look at the standardized SOA definition (vs. home- or >>vendor-made) , I see no Web Services at all. What other model do we have in addition to WS for implementing SOA? @Steve: I'll certianly get more information about eTOM. @Eric: Thanks for a historical view of technologies. Well remaining discussion is very interesting for a newbie like me and I am getting a lot from all of your experienced comments. Thaks all of you again....and I'll be expecting the same encourgement for the next time :) cheers Fakhar Imran
