Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Yefim Natis is sure that ""SOA is integration"

Expand Messages
  • Michael Poulin
    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 services
    Message 1 of 117 , Dec 17, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      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 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.

      - Michael


      From: Rob Eamon <reamon@...>
      To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:07:48 PM
      Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Yefim Natis is sure that ""SOA is integration"

      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 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
      that principle.

      -Rob

      --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, "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.
      >
      > Anne


    • Michael Poulin
      So information about governance is more important than information about service design and development? Hmmm. Not exactly, Rob, more accurately - not
      Message 117 of 117 , Jan 3, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        "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



        From: Rob Eamon <reamon@...>
        To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:43:58 AM
        Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Yefim Natis is sure that "SOA is integration"

        --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael
        Poulin <m3poulin@.. .> wrote:

        >
        > Yes, we have to stop bullsh!t ourselves hoping that "presentations
        > on services" can ever work instead of Governance.

        So information about governance is more important than information
        about service design and development? Hmmm.

        >
        > Governance is the thing which defines "what constitutes a good
        > service, how many interfaces are too many, managing the
        > relationship between interface definition and service
        > implementation, etc"

        I'm with Jeff, that's design or architecture. "Governance" is the
        latest fad word that was previously covered in large part
        by "management. "

        -Rob


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.