What is the difference between integration and interaction? Maybe this is the way to finally find if SOA is about integration or not. When we gather servicesMessage 1 of 117 , Dec 17 8:51 AMView SourceWhat is the difference between integration and interaction?
Maybe this is the way to finally find if SOA is about integration or not. When we gather services into the orchestrated process, it this an integration or interaction?
I would agree with "integration strategy is a side-effect of applying SO principles at the enterprise level" after we find the answer to my question above.
To the " 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 that principle" - I agree with this in the following interpretation:
- if we deal with technical business services that implement business functional services (functions, features, processes), access to particular business service/function/feature has to be guaranteed in the terms of the business operating model. To provide such 'guarantee' we, probably have to have a redundant access to those business service/function/feature implementation. It is not exactly the same as redundant applications that perform the same things (in different ways) but rather several services that have capability to support the same business functionality, on demand. This is the concept; how to implement it - is the art of design.
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