If two people listen a radio broadcast, would it be right to say that they are integrated via the same language ? I think, it is too much. Plus, they, probably, understand different things from the broadcast depending on the 'context' of their minds.
I do not understand why we have to go that deeply into 'integration'... Integration and Usage make more sense to me than just Degrees of Integration. Even service orientation, which is supposed to be the Letter and the Spirit of all who are 'doing' service, is not everywhere (http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/service_oriented/2009/03/maestro_visa_and_service_orientation.php) - Michael ________________________________ From: Rob Eamon <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 4:45:49 AM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Misperceptions about integration and SOA I'm not sure how the interaction between a service client and a service provider is analogous to you riding in a vehicle. The metaphor doesn't seem to ring true. A service consumer cannot just "get on the bus" without any effort. For a consumer to interact with a provider, the consumer must create a document with particular syntax and semantics. It must communicate using the agreed upon protocol (e.g. HTTP) and exchanges (e.g. send a PO and the consumer will get a PO ack back or an error doc). Not a difficult effort but there is some effort. Your message example is about the degree of coupling. The broadcaster doesn't agree with a *specific* receiver on the message format. But the broadcaster and receiver have made these agreements (if only implicitly): * Broadcaster will publish a message via an intermediary * Some receiver, somewhere on the other side of the intermediary, will process the message (if noone is listening, there is no integration and nothing of meaning being done) * Both broadcaster and receiver must agree on syntax and semantics (shared doc definition), or (implicitly) agree to allow the intermediary to translate as needed * Both broadcaster and receiver have agreed to communicate with others via the intermediary, rather than directly They are integrated. Just in a loosely-coupled way. -Rob --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael Poulin <m3pou...@.. .> wrote: > > If I am using a car, bus, or train, I do interact with them but I > do not integrate with them. > > For an extreme example, I can broadcast (via Topic) a message via > MOM somewhere in China but write the content of the message in > Russian or English. Do I integrate with the receiver of the message > if I do not preliminary agree with the message receiver on the > message content format and semantics? I do not think so; I may have > a fact of interaction w/o integration. > > - Michael
