Let's consider an order service. The order service has add order, update order, ..etc. These are business services orchestrated together to build the order business process or service. Each servcie re
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Michael Poulin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Following AW's line of logic and considering data access functionality, let > me ask: why data access functionality must be service-based (while data IS > important for services)? > > Some time ago we discussed Data Services. My 'take away' from that > discussion was that entities performing just CRUD are not services; Data > Service appears when it adds something that is not available from the data > resource itself, i.e. accumulation of data, aggregating of data from > different data feeds, data transformation, and so on. That is, Data Service > has to add some functionality on the top of data source driver. If this > functionality is based on business requirements (e.g. an aggregation > performed according to special business combinations of data), the Data > Service may become a business service, if it is just a data transformation - > it is an infrastructural utility service. > > I hope, this explanation better shows what I mean... > > - Michael > > ------------------------------ > *From:* A W <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:10:57 PM > *Subject:* Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Joe on Microsoft's > combination of SOA & Storage > > A new service-oriented application exposes business behaviour as a > service and also reuses business logic, which is exposed as a service. > > We need to know how to provision the services as soon as they are created. > > The identification and realization of services are the first steps in > implementing the vision of a set of optimized business processes. > > Services can be identified essentially from three main sources : > > - Existing assets -- Services that are identified from high-value > business functions already deployed in existing systems (for example, > legacy > application) > - External service provider -- Services that are provided by an > external vendor, most likely a vendor who provides services in a specific > area. > - New services identified using a "top-down" approach -- Services that > are identified through a top-down decomposition technique; that is, process > decomposition (These services fill the gaps that are not addressed by the > first two sources; they are new services that need to be implemented from > scratch. > > All of these services need data in some way. > > We cannot consider SOA from a business view only. > Any business service has to be realized and supported by some technology. > The data store is one of the important aspects of SOA. > But from business view, I do agree that data store is not important from > such view, but this doesn’t mean that data must be out of SOA scope. it is > very important from the other different views. > > All the best > > Ashraf Galal > > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Michael Poulin <m3pou...@yahoo. > com<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> What is service oriented in "In addition, data management is >> increasingly being seen in a service-oriented context, as “data >> services<http://blogs.informatica.com/perspectives/index.php/2008/07/29/service-orient-your-enterprise-data-management-with-data-services/>” >> are delivered to end-user business units."? Isn't this just a data store >> driver-on- RPC? >> >> The statement "Microsoft has combined its data storage and Web services >> business units into a single group" has confirmed that MS is looking for >> data storage driver-on-WebServic es, like before there were solutions based >> on CORBA. >> >> Interestingly enough to note that association of Web Services and SOA >> contradicts Microsoft own's Oslo, at least, their Business Capability Model, >> IMO. >> >> "SOA is moving closer to ... enterprise data management" may be >> interpreted in, at least, two ways - as data access channel - remote driver >> - and as meta-data management, which is very much important to the service >> definitions and executions. >> >> I still think that data storage should be outside of SOA scope: business >> services do not care where data comes from whilst the data is of good >> quality. >> >> - Michael >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Gervas Douglas <gervas.douglas@ gmail.com<[email protected]> >> > >> *To:* service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. >> com<[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Sunday, April 5, 2009 11:11:00 PM >> *Subject:* [service-orientated -architecture] Joe on Microsoft's >> combination of SOA & Storage >> >> <<Storage and SOA? That seems like an odd marriage, like combining >> “American Idol” with “Masterpiece Theater” into one show. Or “24″ and >> “Monk.” Or “Monk” and “House.” Or SOA and Chuck Norris<http://soafacts.com/>. >> I could go on… >> >> According to this >> report<http://www.sdtimes.com/MICROSOFT_COMBINES_SOA_AND_STORAGE_BUSINESS_UNITS/About_MICROSOFT_and_SOA/33386>by >> Software Development Times’ David Worthington, Microsoft has combined its >> data storage and Web services business units into a single group, called the >> *Business Platform Division.* >> >> The new division is comprised of Microsoft’s Connected Systems Division >> and Data and Storage Platforms Division. Products under this wing include >> Windows Application Server, BizTalk Server, .NET Framework technologies >> including Windows Communication Foundation and Windows Workflow Foundation, >> .NET cloud services, and the Oslo modeling platform. >> >> Of course, the company says the combined group will create “greater >> synergies.” For anyone worried about Microsoft’s commitment to Web >> services and SOA, the vendor does offer these reassuring words: “We will >> continue to deliver technologies that enable customers to extend the >> significant benefits they are achieving with ‘real-world’ SOA,” according to >> said Darrell Cavens, director of product management in the Enterprise >> Application Platform team at Microsoft. >> >> Should we worry? Storage and SOA seem like an odd combination. >> Worthington’s article suggests that the realignment is due to economic >> conditions. >> >> But I think another factor is at work here. That is, *SOA is moving >> closer to both enterprise data management and cloud computing.* Storage ― >> the ability to store, archive, and manage large volumes of data ― is a pain >> point for many enterprises these days, to which the cloud model offers a >> compelling source of relief. Such capabilities are being offered as >> services, both from external providers and potentially internally, from >> other parts of the enterprise. The whole concept of SANs (storage area >> networks) advances the concept that any and all devices are pooled as a >> gigantic disk. In addition, data management is increasingly being seen in a >> service-oriented context, as “data >> services<http://blogs.informatica.com/perspectives/index.php/2008/07/29/service-orient-your-enterprise-data-management-with-data-services/>” >> are delivered to end-user business units. >> >> So, I don’t think Microsoft is retrenching or cutting back SOA to save >> money ― rather, I think the vendor sees more opportunity in the cloud, with >> the growing service-orientation of data management ― with SOA as the >> enabler.>> >> >> You can find Joe's blog at: http://blogs. zdnet.com/ service-oriented >> /?p=1805 <http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=1805> >> >> Gervas >> >> > > >
