All good points. SOA is most definitely about architecture. While I wouldn t say SOA is integration per se, I d say that integration is one of the coreMessage 1 of 117 , Dec 17 8:07 AMView SourceAll good points. SOA is most definitely about architecture.
While I wouldn't say "SOA is integration" per se, I'd say that
integration is one of the core values of the SO approach. Services
have 1 or more interfaces. Interaction with services is via those
(and only those) interfaces. Services (and other components such as
service clients) exist in independent ownership domains. Those
characteristics are the heart of integration. SO demands that one
consider integration up front rather than as an afterthought.
IMO, integration strategy is a side-effect of applying SO principles
at the enterprise level.
Side note: Redundancy isn't always bad and eliminating it isn't
always the right course of action. Generally speaking, eliminating
redundancy is good but we must be careful about blindly following
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Anne Thomas
Manes" <atmanes@...> wrote:
> While I agree with the last line, I disagree with the leading one:
> "SOA is integration". Many organizations mistakenly percieve SOA as
> an integration strategy. But it is not. SOA is about architecture.
> To achieve SOA, you must rearchitect your systems. You must remove
> the deadwood. Every organization has too much stuff -- too many
> redundant applications and data sources. SOA is about cleaning
> house. You will not simplify your environment, reduce costs, and
> gain agility until you reduce that redundancy.
So information about governance is more important than information about service design and development? Hmmm. Not exactly, Rob, more accurately - notMessage 117 of 117 , Jan 3, 2009View Source"So information about governance is more important than information about service design and development? Hmmm." Not exactly, Rob, more accurately - not 'about' governance but about 'how' the governance regulates development process and enforces the good practices of the development. For example, if someone uses SOAUI for SOA service testing and declares that services have been tested, the SOA Governance has to have a policy saying - no, pal, you have not tested SOA service but only SOAP communication; your job is not done yet!.. Now, the manager has to enforce such policy and follow up with the developers (based on the policy) till proper testing complete.""Governance" is the latest fad word that was previously covered in large part by "management. " " - covered in the sense of enforcement, yes. However (IMO), it was up to individual manager what to enforce. As a result, the quality and architectural integrity was usually sacrificed for the sake of 'simplify', resource 'problems', 'minimal' risks and other managerial excuses for keeping the development under not technically qualified (in many cases) directions.As you see, when talking about SOA governance, I want to give Architects more power to influence proper solution implementations, I want Architects to allow producing the 'law' while keeping management in its regular role of managing/enforcing the laws.- Michael