AW, an access to a business functionality does not make it a service; it is just one of many access channels: an interface does not change the core of the things.
The fact, that component in on Mainframe and was built 10 years ago does not proof that it was not built as a service. business service as “the logical encapsulation of business function” and is realised as an entity (application, if you like) that operates on the SO principles (how it is built - does not matter, though it would be better if it was built using the same SO principles) As of your comment for composite application (CA), I do not see any service orientation in it. According to referenced definition, there is no enterprise elements in it as well. Why do you stay that "composite applications leverage enterprise and enterprise-ready sources (e.g., existing modules or even enterprise web services)"? CA is just a composition of other apps that may have nothing to do with 'enterprise and enterprise-ready sources'. What does mean 'enterprise web services'? If it is about Web Service technology, I do not see how an interface may be an enterprise interface... "It is wrong to assume that composite applications are by definition part of a service oriented architecture (SOA)?" - in my opinion, it is wrong. Not everything that is integrated or composed is a service. "But we can build SOA composite application too" - absolutely agree! In my book-in-printing, I define SOA Application as a composition/collaboration of SOA services (keeping in mind that a process is one of possible implementations of a service). Whether Web Survives are used for SOA services or not - does not matter. Tomorrow there will be another communication technology but the SOA Application will not change until its business logic changes. - Michael ________________________________ From: A W <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 5:08:44 PM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Joe on SOA without service-enabled apps What about a payment component that runs on mainframe using CICS/COBOL/IMS Data base. I wrapped it within a week and worked well with the java and .Net Web applications very well. They were not designed to be a service since more than 10 years ago. Because it is built to support a business function/ process, it is a service. business service as “the logical encapsulation of business function.”All the IT applications are built and incorporate business functions on it. The term composite application, as defined by wikipedia, expresses a perspective of software engineering that defines an application built by combining multiple existing functions into a new application. The technical concept can be compared to mashups. However, composite applications leverage enterprise and enterprise-ready sources (e.g., existing modules or even enterprise web services) of information, while mashups usually rely on web-based, and often free, sources. It is wrong to assume that composite applications are by definition part of a service oriented architecture (SOA). One can build composite applications using any technology or architecture. But we can build SOA composite application too. WS-BPEL is an executable language for specifying interactions with web services. Please refer to OASIS Web Services Composite Application Framework (WS-CAF) TC. All the best Ashraf Galal On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Michael Poulin <m3pou...@yahoo. com> wrote: IMO, Kumar is right and Joe is wrong, that simple. Legacy apps in IT never been services (if they were not designed as such) and they are not services (under the same conditions). The best thing the Legacy apps can do for SOS is to become reliable RESOURCES. The "“modern” systems" operation based on SO principles not wrap but shield Legacy apps when treat them as resources. This is why I think that so-called 'Composite Applications' so dear to Sun Microsystems have very little to do with SOA. There 'Composite Applications' are classical integration products with no service orientation in them. If the goal is 'reuse legacy systems', then do it, and SOS is not needed to reach this goal. - Michael ________________________________ From: Gervas Douglas <gervas.douglas@ gmail.com> To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:41:37 PM Subject: [service-orientated -architecture] Joe on SOA without service-enabled apps <<“SOA Possible Even Without Service-Enabled Apps.” This is a statement that goes against the conventional wisdom, so, being a fan of things that go against conventional wisdom, I checked out this Q&A interview with Shailender Kumar, vice president of Oracle Fusion Middleware for Oracle India, to see what his thinking was. I wasn’t dissapointed. As Kumar put it, the idea that SOA requires that participating applications be service-oriented is a “myth.” Most IT shops, in fact, will have a mix of approaches. There will be legacy systems, and there will be “modern” systems, there will be all kinds of middleware and messaging brokers. As he explains it: “If you have an application that is service-enabled, and a whole bunch of applications that are not service-enabled, you can still connect these by deploying adapters. Once [people] realize that, they start to see where SOA can fit in bringing connectivity between diverse transaction engines.” Oracle’s strategy is to position Fusion as the platform that will bring together a lot of diverse assets from across the enterprise into a service layer, and, not surprisingly, this is reflected in Kumar’s statement. But unless an organization throws out all its systems and starts entirely from scratch these days, most SOA efforts will be very ungainly and unique contraptions — and that’s okay. In surveys I have seen and conducted, even the most advanced SOA-savvy companies have less than 20% of their portfolios SOA-ready. And, of course, JBOWS is the predominant architecture at this point. And that’s okay, too. It’s a stage in evolution. And in all likelihood, there will be no compelling need to service-enable 100% of everything. But SOA is in a lot of places, Kumar also reminds us. For example, every time we order from Amazon (an Oracle Fusion customer), the order is processed via a service-oriented framework.>> You can read Joe's blog at: http://blogs. zdnet.com/ service-oriented /?p=1725 Gervas
