I would just like to point out as someone who did his undergrad work with some real old school engineers.
They NEVER looked at the instructions. Hit it with a hammer first, then get the oscilloscope out appeared to be the basic approach. Steve 2009/1/25 Michael Poulin <[email protected]>: > Gregg, we nedd to do what old engineers did when they could not make a > machine to work - they looked into instructions. > > I do not WHEN "everyone knows "what is SOA?"" but everyone can follow the > SOA RM standard if they want to know WHAT is SOA. Unfortunately for them, > they will not find HOW to do this. Nonetheless, they can apply their CS > Knowledge into right direction (as pointed by Steve J. with regards to > Chairman Mao's expression) instead of endlessly debating what's what in > exceptional isolated case. > > To my regret, several patterns in SOA Design Pattern work in full, i.e. as > defined, only for the things like Web Services. Wouldn't it be more fair to > call them Web Services Design Patterns and don't confuse those who want to > look wider than Web Services? (you can call it "black-and-white" if you > want) > > - Michael > > P.S. SOA became a bad word only after 'white' was named 'white' while many > continued calling it 'black' due to personal convenience (productivity, > automation, representation to the bosses , etc.) > > > ________________________________ > From: Gregg Wonderly <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 6:29:04 PM > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Service Façade > > Michael Poulin wrote: >> I am not saying that this pattern is wrong or bad, on a contrary. I am >> only saying that its representation, as it is done, is not for SOA >> Patterns. > > Michael, I really think that it is this black-and-white, no shades of grey > or > color allowed which makes SOA such a bad word. Anyone can say "That is not > SOA." But until everyone knows "what is SOA?", it is a little difficult for > anyone to really get traction off such declarations. Instead, people are > confused because there are so many good, or useful parts of what is > "visible" > they just can't get on track with such "short on detail" commentary. > > This is why I have always said "there is nothing to the term SOA." It's a > fruitless attempt at categorization, which humans really like to do. It > allows > them to instantly group "good" and "bad", "harmful" and "helpful" etc. But, > when the breadth of the topic is so wide with detail (pencils & paper vs > computers and networks, people vs process etc) and so enormously context > sensitive (what your business needs now and what will make it best later is > specific to the employees and your customers more than to what you produce > in > many cases). > > Sweeping generalization of problems is vastly easier than broadly workable > solutions. > > Gregg Wonderly > >
