On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:07 PM, David Chappell <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll get more info but its easy to imagine that services that provide access > to call detail records could be used by a variety of things besides fraud > detection. > Also if the design includes BPEL then it is by default more flexible than > hard coded interactions between services.
My point was that "leaving to the imagination" issues like sharability and evolvability in an "SOA success story" fundamentally misses the point of SOA. Yet virtually all "SOA success stories" are guilty of this. BTW, BPEL can make some aspects of a design more flexible, eg the process flow. But BPEL in itself has no impact on the flexibility of the underlying services and the structure of the information that flows between them. So even if BPEL enabled a particular change, a brittle service interface may prevent it. Sort of a variation on "the weakest link in a chain". The "most brittle link in a chain" is what limits flexibility -- even in all the other links are BPEL-enabled changeable links. -- Nick
