Apparently, we do agree. if we use SO instead of SOA and apply SO principles where we need, both of us have the shared view on this subject.
What I dislike is SO<N>, like SOI; if we apply SO to integration, I am fine with it (though I do not know how to do it) but I disagree with service-oriented integration. - Michael ________________________________ From: Rob Eamon <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 2:59:58 PM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] SO applied to different architecture levels (was Re: Roch on SOA Failures) Yes, we still disagree. IMO, SOA is not a level of architecture. It has no inherent level of scope. SO can be applied business-wide, technology-wide, application- wide. At any level of scope the archictect desires. I understand that many here feel that "true SOA" is basically an EA (or BA). I don't share that view. IA is not a subset of SOA. IA might be a subset of EA, if one does an EA and includes IA. Applying SO to IA makes IA and SOA. -Rob --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael Poulin <m3pou...@.. .> wrote: > > We still disagree about SOA and integration. But this is different > topic. > > IMO, a car engine is the unit that can help car movement, but > saying that the engine may be a car... is too much stretch. IA may > be used when implementing SO solutions (SOS), but IA by itself > cannot be SOS; service orientation situates above integration, in > Technology and in Business. > > - Michael
