Hi Gregg, I haven't followed all the twists and turns of this discussion but I though would comment on one (often overlooked) fragment you mentioned.
On Jan 24, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Gregg Wonderly wrote: > > The communication mechanism of all the information between the pieces is > frankly, immaterial. But everything a computer system does has a "beginning" > (the call out to do the work) and an end (the return to the point of the > call). > That is the model that helps make it very visible when a responsibility is > passed off to another party. > because there is no imaginary handoff. It's in your face as you look at it. > > The issue of passing responsibilities is usually more intricate than most SOA standards/frameworks today can handle. >From a legal point of view, communication across legal boundries, possibly >across national borders, may be/is regulated in law. This in a ways that most >implementation technologies such as SOAP HTTP and REST HTTP dont handle >directly. The legally relevant "reach-the mind" and "reach-the-desk" events are most often dug out from IT system after they have been build. These events are "business" concerns and should be explicitly discovered and defined. If one makes a call/send message/issue communication and the call returns an Error, does this means that the communication was not received? Maybe. It much easier to design in-house service than across legal boundery services /anders w. tell Senior ESA Architect Standard strategist.
