On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 18:38, Rob Eamon <[email protected]> wrote: > But SOA doesn't make that assumption.
No, but "integration" does. This is about the semantics of that word, no? > Instead, it assumes that we > *don't know* which components will need to interact in the future. > Therefore, we must take steps to make it as easy as possible to > assemble (dare I say integrate) components into a working whole on an > ad-hoc basis. And do so repeatedly over time as needs and processes > change. I don't think anyone disagrees with this being what we want and should do, but just saying "integration" isn't going to do it for you. Just like "SOA" is a bad word, so is "integration", even if both are perfectly fine as pipe-dreams and aspirations to follow (and quite normal words/acronyms with normal meaning). To invoke parts of Godwin's law, it's a bit like calling your kid "Adolph" these days; a perfectly normal name, with a tad of historical and cultural baggage. Anyway, this isn't the most exciting argument we could have. Let's try another. :) regards, Alex -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps ------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
