<< OO and SO are concepts that can be applied to many things>> - absolutely,
the matter is in what things are and which order. In many cases the solutions
look like people do know reight 'words' but still do not know the right order
for these words.
The example is DDD that tried (initially) to treat service as an
externalisation and screwed the SO principles at the level of services. This is
why I promote DOSOM as a superposition of business functions (services) and its
realisation (OO implementation) preserving: SOA implementation =
Composition{Service (DDD)}, where OO does NOT drive my service relationships
and dependencies from the top to the bottom of implementation; SO defines the
scope and boarders for OO, not other way around.
- Michael
________________________________
From: htshozawa <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009 2:39:51 PM
Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Anne again on SOA's Mortality
--- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Steve Jones
<jones.steveg@ ...> wrote:
>
> Verna Allee does SOA and she isn't about technology. OO was NEVER a
> business thing (and I was an OO nazi) it was an IT thing.
>
Well all other UML Business Analysis books, courses, and services using OO can
be said to be more IT even though they pretend to be business by doing BSC and
KPI. :-)
> The SO thing is about the shift from value chains (process) to value
> networks (services) and its NOTHING to do with the IT view.
>
Service oriented concepts can be applied to value networks too.
I can create an OO model of my ice cream cone too. OO and SO are concepts that
can be applied to many things. :-)
H.Ozawa
