2009/1/12 Gervas Douglas <[email protected]>: > --- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" > <jones.ste...@...> wrote: >> >> 2009/1/12 Anne Thomas Manes <atma...@...>: > >> > 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. > > Would this include Neo-Gothic cathedrals and other such large > ecclesiastical structures in the same style (my old school chapel > springs to mind :)
Actually that is a top point, Neo-Gothic takes exactly the same architectural principles as Gothic but its implementation is using more modern tools, the end result is however STILL clearly "Gothic Oriented". Steve > > Gervas > >> 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 <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 >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >
