I'm not so sure. The pattern states it is "...an intermediary 
processing layer in between the core service logic and the service 
contract."

This is a technique to make it easier for a service implementation to 
provide the logic described by the contract. An adaptive layer, if 
you will, between contract definition and core implementation logic 
to handle disparities.

The service category of facade from Krafzig, Banke and Slama 
describes that the facade is a "store front" (my words) in front of 
other services.

This is creating a new contract altogether, with a new, independent 
service the (thin) implementation of which uses other services--which 
would still independently exist and could be used.

Same term, similar meanings, different implications?

-Rob

--- In [email protected], Steve Jones 
<jones.ste...@...> wrote:
>
> 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 <rea...@...>:
> > 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.steveg@> 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
> >
> >
>


Reply via email to