Believe it or not, Rob, I agree with you again: "wrapping a CICS app with a service wrapper is exactly the same as defining the service defintion first and then creating the service implementation (which can use *any* technology or architecture) behind it." The key word here is "wrapping a CICS app with a service", not with a service interface as many have read it based on the similarity between words Service and Web Service (which is the interface)
- Michael ________________________________ From: Rob Eamon <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 3:13:10 PM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Joe on SOA without service-enabled apps --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael Poulin <m3pou...@.. .> wrote: > > 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. According to SOA definitions, that is exactly what it does. True, there is more to a service than the interface (granularity, contract, discoverability, etc.) but wrapping a CICS app with a service wrapper is exactly the same as defining the service defintion first and then creating the service implementation (which can use *any* technology or architecture) behind it. Wrapping existing functionality with a service definition is perfectly legitimate. -Rob
