Could be but I think the intent similar, yes Thomas Erl is more on the implementation detail but the intent appears (to me) to be the same.
Steve 2009/1/22 Rob Eamon <[email protected]>: > As described in the pattern of the day text, isn't this pattern a > service implementation detail? > > Krafzig, Banke and Slama define facade differently from that pattern-- > "a different view (probably aggregated) of one or more existing > services." > > What you've described seems to match that more than the description > in the pattern. > > Thoughts? > > -Rob > > --- In [email protected], Steve Jones > > <jones.ste...@...> wrote: >> >> I think you might be being a little harsh on this one Michael. >> Service Facade is a very strong SOA pattern (IMO), in fact with the >> organisational re-org stuff I'm doing at the moment its exactly the >> sort of approach I'm taking. Single central service with multiple >> interfaces delivered via Facades, no technology, no web services. >> >> The book has to cater to people who are thinking in a WSDL or other >> generation type of way and to explain why their way of thinking is >> wrong. Had he ignored that mentality then they will not have >> realised why the pattern is an effective one (its not simply a >> patch, its a good practice). >> >> Steve > >
