Steve said: > To take the cathedral argument, I do the architecture in a Gothic > style, the designer then takes this and turns it into blueprints and > the implementor then builds it. At the end of the process I can point > at the cathedral and say "that implements my principles and > guidelines".
Yes -- but you wouldn't call the cathedral "a Gothic". Anne On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Steve Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/1/12 Anne Thomas Manes <[email protected]>: > >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Steve Jones <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> 2009/1/11 Anne Thomas Manes <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Michael/Steve, >>>> >>>> If the definition of SOA is so simple and obvious, why is it that we >>>> get into heated permathreads whenever someone says something like "SOA >>>> = integration"? >>> >>> Because that is the detail, which is where we are saying the issue is >>> but also because its part of the subversion that some analysts and >>> most vendors have done deliberately. SOA = Technology. >> >> But that's just my point: The industry has not agreed on the meaning of >> SOA. > > Well some of us have, you do have to wonder why others like to have > their own personal definitions. I look at SOA like GSM v CDMA, the > whole world could have had a standard but some people just have to go > their own way no matter how silly that is. > > I agree we don't have a definition _in detail_ but we can all agree on > the starter for ten (its about Services & Architecture). We live in > an industry that still can't agree what OO is about and where people > argue about REST (can browsers be truly REST if they don't have > PUT/DELETE) when there is a single version of the truth (the paper). > It takes a huge amount to get everyone to agree to a standard but > pretty much only technical standards can be agreed universally and > then only when there is a clear market driver to collaborate > (802.11x). > >> >>>> >>>> What are people talking about when they refer to "their SOA"? >>> >>> Their Service Oriented Architecture? Well most of the time its the >>> pictures and architectural artefacts that define how their IT is going >>> to be delivered, sometimes its the physical realisation of that >>> architecture and sometimes its just because they've bought a product >>> with an SOA sticker. >> >> When people talk about SOA as a thing, they are talking about their >> ESB. They might also include the applications that they've deployed >> that communicate using the ESB. They are not talking about pictures >> and architectural artifacts. > > Might be the people you talk to but the ones I work with have an ESB > "in" their SOA as part of the implementation but they have a clear set > of "services" that interact through that ESB and its the services that > are important. > >> >>> >>>> What's a >>>> SOA? SOA is something you do, not something you build. But most of the >>>> world doesn't understand that. >>> >>> An SOA is something you _realise_ (i.e. make real) so it can have a >>> physical manifestation, so I would say that you can "build" a SOA in >>> the same way as you can build a Cathedral based on Gothic Oriented >>> Architecture. >> >> I disagree. SOA is something you do. It's not something you build or >> buy. SOA is the architectural principles that you apply when you >> design a system. It seems that our definitions are further apart than >> I thought. > > I think we agree, I think that you do SOA, you then do SOD (Service > Oriented Delivery) which eventually ends up in SOM (Service Oriented > Management). You don't directly build the SOA you need to do SOD to > make sure that the SOA is realised as services (rather than being > "simply" governed as services) but I'd argue that people can then > point to the actual implementation and map directly back from the > physical implementation to the conceptual services within the > architecture. > > To take the cathedral argument, I do the architecture in a Gothic > style, the designer then takes this and turns it into blueprints and > the implementor then builds it. At the end of the process I can point > at the cathedral and say "that implements my principles and > guidelines". > > Steve > >> >>> >>> Or did you mean "buy"? >>> >>> Steve >>> >>>> >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Michael Poulin <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> +100 to Steve, no comments >>>>> >>>>> Accidentally, I have found that Casewise Modelling suite refers in its >>>>> v. >>>>> 2008 to the OASIS SOA RM directly and that IDS Scheer's Asis suite has >>>>> implemented Service Description/Contract model described in SOA RA >>>>> draft. >>>>> And you can find by yourself how many hundreds of companies use those >>>>> toolsets. >>>>> >>>>> - Michael >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: Steve Jones <[email protected]> >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 2:05:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] I say SOA was never born >>>>> - >>>>> How about now? Are WE ready? >>>>> >>>>> 2009/1/10 Anne Thomas Manes <atma...@gmail. com>: >>>>>> Steve, >>>>>> >>>>>> Although "service oriented architecture" broadly conveys it's meaning, >>>>>> it's precise meaning is open to wide interpretation. >>>>> >>>>> Agreed, but pretty much any three words are. "Liberte, egalite, >>>>> fraternite" are three cracking words. Pop outside to the suburbs of >>>>> Paris and you will get a very different view on their precise meaning >>>>> than that you'd get in the centre of Paris. "In God we Trust" is four >>>>> words but I still bet that you'd get a huge range of opinions >>>>> (including within the founding fathers) on what it means. >>>>> >>>>> Hell over 20% of American's don't think that the phrase "George W >>>>> Bush" matches to catastrophic failure and economists appear to >>>>> struggle over what really constitutes a "recession". >>>>> >>>>> One of the biggest problems with SOA has been that vendors and (some) >>>>> analysts appear to have a vested interest in muddying the waters to >>>>> help them sell products or research. This was why a while ago I felt >>>>> like giving up on SOA and just using BSA, but now I've decided >>>>> bollocks to that its time to fight that rubbish and make SOA clear and >>>>> simple. >>>>> >>>>> You start with the services >>>>> If you don't have services as the primary modelling part of your >>>>> architecture then it isn't SOA >>>>> If you can't show me the service architecture PICTURE and have someone >>>>> (not yourself) clearly identify the services in the picture then it >>>>> isn't SOA >>>>> Technology is the execution context and (from a Zachman/TOGAF >>>>> perspective) is at the Logical and Physical layers. >>>>> >>>>>> My guess is that >>>>>> your definition is quite different from Sandy Carter's definition, as >>>>>> well as Rob's. Our definitions might be closer in alignment, but they >>>>>> are still different.if you ask 5 architects to define SOA, you'll get >>>>>> at least 6 answers. Hence the word has up meaning. >>>>> >>>>> 'up meaning'? >>>>> >>>>> Yes we might disagree about the next bit of the definition, but I'd >>>>> say that most people would agree that it means that >>>>> >>>>> a) Services are the important thing >>>>> b) Its about the architectural stage of the programme, the big picture >>>>> stuff that kicks it off and sets it all up >>>>> >>>>> In three words that is about as much as you are ever going to get on a >>>>> concept. "Shock and Awe" just looked like blowing the crap out of the >>>>> country to me, but apparently it was a detailed military strategy, >>>>> what myself and the US army could both agree on however is that its >>>>> intent was to scare the shit out of people and then make them feel >>>>> they had no hope. >>>>> >>>>> If you ask Duane, Michael and I you'd have a shot at getting the SOA >>>>> RM as our definition and I personally think that there are an awful >>>>> lot of people out there who moan about the SOA RM but who have >>>>> singularly failed to come up with anything better. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry its 2am here and I'm writing a bid document so I'm a bit grumpy, >>>>> this is my letting off steam before getting back in. >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/10/09, Steve Jones <jones.steveg@ gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> 2009/1/10 Michael Poulin <m3pou...@yahoo. com>: >>>>>>>> SOA - service-oriented architecture - "is a bad word because it >>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>> us anything" >>>>>>>> OOD - object-oriented design - "is a bad word because it doesn't >>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>> us >>>>>>>> anything" >>>>>>>> DDD - domain-driven design - "is a bad word because it doesn't tell >>>>>>>> us >>>>>>>> anything" >>>>>>>> WOA -web-oriented architecture - "is a bad word because it doesn't >>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>> us >>>>>>>> anything" >>>>>>>> MDA - model-driven architecture - "is a bad word because it doesn't >>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>> us >>>>>>>> anything" >>>>>>>> POA - process-oriented architecture - "is a bad word because it >>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>> us anything" >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, all these "D" and "A" are bad words. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, what are the good words? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chocolate and rambunctious are wonderful words. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem is however that in reality very little is ever going to >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> conveyed in three words with oriented in the middle >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Stimulus oriented economics" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However what SOA/WOA/XOA do say is two things >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is the most important thing (Services in the case of SOA) and >>>>>>> what domain is it applied within (Architecture) . Now that to me has >>>>>>> always been enough for me to understand broadly what it is about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Michael >>>>>>>> P.S. In one of famous Russian sarcastic romans, a femail-character >>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> 30 words to express all emotions and desires, and everything else. I >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> help to translate this example into English for our use. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And at the other end of the scale Shakespear invented hundreds if not >>>>>>> thousands of words to convey what he wanted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> English is a wonderfully creative language but its not meant to be >>>>>>> specific, its meant to be abused which is why we have problems with >>>>>>> clarity in a language that has no real rules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________ _________ _________ __ >>>>>>>> From: Nick Gall <nick.g...@gmail. com> >>>>>>>> To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com >>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 1:06:56 AM >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] I say SOA was never >>>>>>>> born >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> How about now? Are WE ready? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Michael Poulin <m3pou...@yahoo. com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> JP said: "I say SOA was never born" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like this line of JP's better: >>>>>>>> "SOA is a bad word because it doesn't tell us anything." >>>>>>>> -- Nick >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
