2009/1/12 Anne Thomas Manes <[email protected]>: > 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".
But I'd consider it an implementation of a Gothic Oriented Architecture and its principles and practice to be Gothic Oriented. What I mean is that I can tell the difference between a realised POA and a realised SOA. Steve > > 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
