--- In [email protected], Todd Biske <toddbi...@...> wrote: > > Here's wishing I already had cut & paste on my iPhone... > > Q1: have you understood the definition of SOI correctly? Yes. > Q2: what if incremental gains are sufficient? I absolutely agree. > You need to have some idea of why you're doing SOA and what you > hope to achieve, and find a way to measure it so you know when > you're successful. If you have very little redundancy in your > enterprise
That's an assumed goal. Reduction of redundancy may or may not be a goal--regardless of how much redundancy exists. Indeed, explicitly providing redundancy might be a valid goal. > and the more important goal is looser coupling to minimize the > impact of change, then merely plugging in some XML technologies in > place of something else could be sufficient. You jumped from conceptual to assuming a particular technology implementation. I'm referring to the architecture level. > Q3: Can an integration architecture be service-oriented. I have a > hard time viewing an integration architecture as anything more than > a technology architecture, Understandable because that's how most have experienced it and "integration" and "technology" go hand in hand. > which leads me to say it can be web service oriented, but not > service oriented, at least in how I use the term. As soon as I go > toward my definition of service, it's about a functional > architecture. An integration architecture is about how we > construct the services rather than what the services are. IA is about how components are to interact. A focus on the "execution context" if you will. An IA will likely address more than just services as end-points. And may focus on "in the middle" stuff as services rather than on the end-points. I'm not saying its the thing to do in all cases, just that it may be okay and that it is SOA. -Rob
