Have you read the specifications? [Disclosure: I'm one of the original
authors as is Eric Newcomer.]
Mark.
On 21 Mar 2009, at 16:43, Michael Poulin wrote:
OASIS Web Services Composite Application Framework is fine but where
service orientation in it?
- Michael
From: Rob Eamon <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 3:10:09 PM
Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Joe on SOA without
service-enabled apps
+1.
-Rob
--- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, A W
<ashra...@.. .> wrote:
>
> 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<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup_%28web_application_hybrid%29
>.
> 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
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Services>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...@.. .>
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@ ...>
> > *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<http://www.cxotoday .com/India/ CXO_Views/ SOA_Possible_ even_without_ Service-enabled_ Apps/551- 100089-1006. html
>,
> > 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<http://www.webservices.org/weblog/joe_mckendrick/the_rise_of_the_jbows_architecture_or_just_a_bunch_of_web_services
>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 <http://blogs. zdnet.com/ service-oriented /?p=1725>
> > *
> >
> > *Gervas*
> >
> >
> >
>
