--- In [email protected], "Udi Dahan" <thesoftwaresimpl...@...> wrote: > > > Anyone have [.] a differing view? > > > > Well, since you asked :-)
The exchange of ideas and opinions is the value of these boards! > > > Eliminate 1 or even 2 apps, we will still have 9-20 services to > > manage independently vs. 5 applications. > > > > I would strongly argue against this process for identifying > services. > > It also sounds like it would require rewriting those applications - > a big up-front cost without any immediate return. The example proposed wasn't intended to promote any particular service identification approach. Rather, given Anne's thought about the need for application portfolio reduction or application rationalizations, the assumption in the example was that applications were replaced with services some how, some way. And the number of services listed was simply estimated from the number of applications being rationalized. The assumption being that each application would be replaced by multiple services. It was not intended as a commentary on how the rationalization would occur. > In some previous threads (like > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated- architecture/message/12037) I gave examples of coarse business > services which interact with each other using business events. > You'd likely find multiple applications and even people working > within those services. > > This style of service granularity and interaction does in fact > reduce complexity where possible, compartmentalizing it when > necessary. > > Applications are more of an implementation detail for these kinds of > services. "Where possible" makes sense. I contend, however, that typically an SO approach will generally result in more components, and will thus be more complex than than the environment it is replacing. It will be true that particular capabilities are unlikely to exist in multiple places since one of the usual goals is eliminating redundancy. So that's good. But generally we still have more independent components, correct? -Rob
