Is SOA an integration or service orientation? What does mean Service Autonomy principle in integration, etc. ?
I have reviewed SO principles trying make them independent from Web Service mentality at http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/service_oriented/2009/02/principles_of_service_orientation_reviewed.php also http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/service_oriented/2009/03/soa_is_about_the_change_or_qcon_2009_in_london.php , where I talk about effect I noticed at QCon-2009 in London this month: NOBODY talked about SOA+Integration, 85% of speakers who mentioned SOA did in the context of SOA+ChangeHandling/Adoption SOA+ChangeHandling/Adoption - this is what I am talking for a year already; this logically streams from OASIS SOA. My book-in-printing has this subject as one of the major leitmotivs. - Michael ________________________________ From: Rob Eamon <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:55:02 AM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] SO applied to different architecture levels (was Re: Roch on SOA Failures) Not my invention. It's from Anne. Perhaps she'd like to elaborate. My interpretation is that it is SO principles applied to integration architecture/ activity. -Rob --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael Poulin <m3pou...@.. .> wrote: > > Rob, if SOI stands for SO integration, please, explaing what the > h... is this? > - Michael > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > From: Rob Eamon <rea...@...> > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:46:49 PM > Subject: [service-orientated -architecture] SO applied to different > architecture levels (was Re: Roch on SOA Failures) > > > Wanted to explore the "SOI vs SOA" aspect a bit. > > I've long held that SOA is not a distinct level of architecture. Some agree > that SOA is a style, not an architecture itself. The term SOA does not infer > any particular level. One can apply SO principles to any architecture. > > Some use the term SOA to refer to an architecture definition, rather than a > style. In other words, SOA is EA. SOA infers architecture at the enterprise > level. If one is not defining an EA when "doing SOA" then it isn't SOA, it is > something else. > > [Some-- at least Steve ;-) -- equate SOA to BA. I'm omitting BA for the > purposes of this discussion.] > > It is this latter view that seems to weigh in on the SOI vs. SOA topic and > seems to have prompted the invention of the "SOI" term. It implies that > architecture is not involved. > > Assuming one agrees with the notion of an "integration architecture" as a > possible architectural level, is it reasonable to apply SO principles to the > IA? As such, would the IA be an SOA? > > Is applying SO to IA a poor choice? Is defining an IA a poor choice, as > opposed to a more encompassing EA effort? Is redefining the EA (e.g. > "simplifying their applications and...") the only reasonable path to business > agility? Is business agility *the* primary thing to strive for? > > -Rob > > --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Anne Thomas Manes > <atmanes@ > wrote: > > > > Most organizations that I've spoken to are using service-oriented > > middleware to do integration (SOI rather than SOA). Very few > > companies are actually rearchitecting their systems, i.e., > > simplifying their applications and data architectures in order to > > increase agility. >
