Integration of the services, sorry, collaboration, is not or should not be the same thing as application integration we know today. Yes, we need a flexibility to combine components, better be services, in new compositions as easy as possible. My only concern is that it should not be done for the cost of changing the service itself.
If 'ad hoc' is equal to 'as needed', I am fine but if it is about reckless integration, for the sake of connecting the things w/o considering the context and consequences, I am not fine at all. If we deal with atomic services, they do not need others to fulfill their obligations, i.e. to provide promised business functionality and RWE. We cannot rid of them because they represent the lowest level of business functionality, i.e. they implement an atomic business function or feature. So, we need a mechanism that can extract service capabilities and use them in different collaborations (but w/o modifying collaboration participants). We have orchestration for this. Is this enough? What we need to add, if any, "to make it as easy as possible to assemble (dare I say integrate) components into a working whole on an ad-hoc basis"? - Michael ________________________________ From: Alexander Johannesen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2009 6:32:46 PM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Linthicum's Latest Blog On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 18:38, Rob Eamon <rea...@cableone. net> 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/ --------
