"not everything in useful/practical architecture has to do with SO" but SO has useful/practic alapproach to almost everything
- Michael ________________________________ From: Rob Eamon <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:08:38 PM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Joe on Microsoft's combination of SOA & Storage --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael Poulin <m3pou...@.. .> wrote: > > Thank you, Rob, you gave me a few good ideas and just confirmed me > in my 'opinion'. There is good value in constructive contention! :-) Debate and discussion is generally a Good Thing. > Only one tip: try to look at the whole picture again considering > that in SO environment: > > * there may be services without consumers, Then why does the service exist? A "build it and they will come" approach seems risky. > * there may be consumers without services Then they are not service consumers. If by "consumer" you mean in a general sense, then yes we agree consumers of things that are not services most certainly exist. But that's not part of the SO aspects of an environment. > * there may be data without services (corporate data under > corporate ontology; the data that may be used by future services or > by existing services in the future/new execution contexts) Certainly. Applications and data warehouses and such all have "data without services." These components must be addressed in the non-SO parts of the architecture definition. (An architecture is never just SO, IMO.) > * there may be service without data (but with the service > semantics) IMO, never (or very, very rarely--but I cannot think of an example at the moment). This is a root disagreement we have. Services are responsible for and own the data associated with the capabilities they expose. I'll offer an item for your consideration: not everything in useful/practical architecture has to do with SO. -Rob
