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

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

Expand Messages
  • Anne Thomas Manes
    Rob, If your focus is integration, then you re less likely to be thinking about reducing redundancy through application consolidation. Integration is driven by
    Message 1 of 117 , Dec 20, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Rob,

      If your focus is integration, then you're less likely to be thinking
      about reducing redundancy through application consolidation.
      Integration is driven by individual projects, i.e., taking lots of
      small steps, but not bothering with the "thinking big" aspect. If you
      combine SOI with. Strong application portfolio management effort, then
      I don't think the difference is anything to be concerned about. The
      execution of specific projects tends to be equivalent.

      Anne

      On 12/20/08, Rob Eamon <reamon@...> wrote:
      > I'd argue that most services are more or less independent. And are
      > likely in various ownership domains. IMO, *most* (if not close to
      > all) service interactions are an example of integration.
      >
      > IMO, orchestration and choreography are both types of full-blown
      > integration.
      >
      > SOA is fundamentally about structuring capability such that it can be
      > used by other components. That, at its roots, is integration.
      >
      > But instead of us endlessly debating "it is about integration"
      > vs. "it isn't about integration" let's ask this question--what are
      > the real impacts if it is one or the other? What will an architect do
      > differently if SOA "is" integration vs. if SOA "isn't" integration?
      >
      > IMO, nothing. The integration (or interaction if you prefer) aspect,
      > which is embodied by exposed, documented interfaces, is present
      > simply by following SO principles.
      >
      > I recall there was some significant discussion about choreography vs.
      > orchestration but I didn't pay close attention. Can you list the 2 SO
      > principles that choreography violates? By "suitable for aggregate
      > services only" do you mean suitable for service implementation?
      >
      > -Rob
      >
      > --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, Michael
      > Poulin <m3poulin@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> I agree with " Integrations have interactions.
      >> Interactions are not always within the context of an integration"
      >> This means that service interaction is not necessary integration,
      >> right?
      >> Even more, orchestration is the example of the interaction w/o
      >> integration while choreography is the example of very strong
      >> integration. (BTW, since choreography violates 2 SO Principles, I
      >> think it is suitable for aggregate services only)
      >>
      >> Thus, SOA is not about integration but about interaction, IMO, and
      >> Mr. Yefim Natis' opinion is incorrect.
      >>
      >> - Michael
      >
      >
      >
    • 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.