--- In [email protected], "LAWRENCE" <l.wil...@...> wrote: > > Well SOA is (to me at least) all about building agile architectures > that can be quickly adapted to meet new requirements.
Agreed. > > Throwaway or disposable architecture implies the building is simply > trashed > and replaced, as it is too costly to adapt. > > That may be true with physical buildings - where only the rubble is > reused, > not the 'components' - but doesn't have to be true with > software, which with careful application of SOA and CBD principles > is > inherently more flexible and the elements of which can be > 'reused' in a new instance of architecture, rather than replaced > every time. True, but are there parts where it would indeed be better to simply start over? Steve suggested in his blog that perhaps service implementations are good candidates for this. Since "service implementations have an architecture of their own" (per Gartner) then perhaps the SO aspects of the overall architecture survive but the "sub-architecture" of the service implementations can be replaced. In other words, at some point the evolution of the service implementation reaches a point of negative return and it is better to start over. -Rob
