--- In [email protected], "Anne Thomas Manes" <atma...@...> wrote: > > 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".
No, but it would be common usage to refer to it as a Gothic cathedral, just as a system could be referred to as a SOA-based system or a SOA implementation. Gervas > > Anne > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Steve Jones <jones.ste...@...> wrote: > > 2009/1/12 Anne Thomas Manes <atma...@...>: > > > >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Steve Jones <jones.ste...@...> > >> wrote: > >>> 2009/1/11 Anne Thomas Manes <atma...@...>: > >>> > >>>> 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 <m3pou...@...> > >>>> 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 <jones.ste...@...> > >>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > >
