Rob, is this an organic mismatch? When I look at Service Description, service interfaces represent approximately 1/5 of information about the service. So, how much in 'not much more'. We, probably, have to return to Steve's T-service and B-service but mean Technology and Business views on the service rather than pure business service and technology service.
In my opinion, a B-service (view) is much closer to the A Consumer's view on the service. Why? Because consumer has to 1) find the service based on its functionality; 2) valuate promised RWE; 3) make a decision that found service suites consumer's needs; 4) and only then consider available communication means including interfaces; 5) make an agreement with the service provider and form a Service Contract. All these are IT activities. >From the architecture perspective, interface is also not the only one thing to >consider but this depends on the concrete architectural goals. For example, an >architect may be very much concern about 1) flexibility - ability to modify >architecture in response to the changes in business needs; 2) high >availability; 3) security; 4) massive data transfer; 5) transactional >behavior; 6) vertical scalability , etc. All these contribute into the >interface definition but interface itself is nothing more than a reflector of >all listed concerns and from only one perspective - communication. The service >body is responsible for performing in accordance with all these 'ilities'. We >do not care how it does this work, we care what it does, e.g., does it do >long-running transactions or not. I think I've illustrated my point. - Michael ________________________________ From: Rob Eamon <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 8:18:24 PM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Joe on SOA without service-enabled apps Right. Service is more than just interface. But not much more. -Rob --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael Poulin <m3pou...@.. .> wrote: > > 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
