Yeap, Rob, probably, you did not. The discussion stopped when we formulated: 1) SOA is not integration but leads to integration (confirmed by Yefim) 2) Integration, by itself, does not lead to SOA
Nobody argued against it, so, I suggested it is the consensus. "In your view, there might be 2. Others define more categories." - sometimes, it requires some patience to read to the end to understand the subject... I think, I explained in my post that those two types of the service behave differently in the service collaboration. I am sorry if it was not comprehensive enough. In particular, only 'aggregate/composite services' can participate in the choreography while both service types can participate in the orchestration (still in different active/passive roles) - Michael ________________________________ From: Rob Eamon <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 3:41:34 PM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Linthicum's Latest Blog --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael Poulin <m3pou...@.. .> wrote: > > I agree, JP, we have got a sort of consensus on SOA and integration. What? I must have not been paying attention because my recollection is that there was continued disagreement about this. The discussion just stopped. Or do you mean you and JP more or less agree? > Let's looks at SOA business services first. There are 2 basic types > of them: In your view, there might be 2. Others define more categories. > self-contained atomic stand-alone services (usually implementing > one concrete business function and not looking for any assistance > from other services to fulfill promised business functionality and > RWE) and aggregate/composite services that may include processes as > the implementations. I'm not sure I understand the value of this categorization. Can you elaborate on why this sort of segregation matters? -Rob
