I would have to say that focusing on what Ed called the "technology
architecture" aspects of SOA is to miss a key aspect. (01)
In the SOA RM, we defined service as a locus in which needs and
capabilities are brought together. (There is much more than that too,
of course). (02)
In the Reference Architecture, we have taken a stance of "SOA as
ecosystem"; a medium of action for human and non-human participants. (03)
We did not really feel the need to denigrate OO, or even CORBA (:-);
because our real focus was on that meeting point between business (or
"getting things done") and technology. (04)
I would argue that the real contribution of SOA lies there; not in any
reworking of CS techniques. (05)
Having said that, in the RA, we have focused on three views: just how
is it that people can get things done using an electronic medium, what
are the key technology pieces involved in making it work, and what are
the key issues involved in owning and maintaining a SOA-based system.
The latter is especially significant if you think that, like the
Internet itself, once a SOA-based system is turned on, it is likely
never turned off. (06)
Frank (07)
On Jul 17, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote: (08)
> Toby Considine wrote:
>> SOA at some level is nothing more than OO writ big (nothing new
>> there!)
>
> Duane Nickull wrote:
>
>> I would consider this not quite true. Service oriented
>> architecture is a
>> paradigm for architecture (software or otherwise), that matches
>> needs and
>> capabilities across multiple domains of ownership. This makes it
>> substantially different from OO which is typically under one
>> environment and
>> one domain of ownership.
>
> I would never have said that "OO is typically under ... one domain of
> ownership". Any set of software that is created under a single
> program-of-work is under one domain of ownership, regardless of its
> architectural paradigm.
>
> But the whole idea of "interface presentation", "instantiation", and
> "encapsulation" (which are the heart of object-oriented technology) is
> that one domain of ownership can use things that were created in, and
> still owned by, another. Lots of programmers write Java programs
> using
> open-source libraries that fit their needs. And vendors write
> software
> tools to run in the Windows environment using off-the-shelf DLLs with
> documented (OO) interfaces. And I assumed that these ideas are what
> Toby meant when he said SOA is OO writ big.
>
> What forced the "single domain" behavior on CORBA and Java/RMI
> environments was the "broker"/"app server" concept. But there is
> nothing OO about the broker/app-server concept; it was just an easy
> implementation architecture for earlier distributed systems. I can
> agree that SOA is a departure from the server/broker *architecture*,
> but
> that part of the CORBA/Java architecture is not an OO property.
>
> Once you generalize the "directory service" concept and provide some
> kind of "dynamic binding" capability, CORBA (3.0) and Java (J2EE) also
> supported interdomain interactions of autonomous agents.
>
> I should say, BTW, that this problem of "portmanteau concepts" is a
> pet
> peeve of mine. People regularly seem to confuse guiding principles
> with
> implementation choices in identifying the facets of a thing like SOA.
> This is also why someone else earlier said that SOA has nothing to do
> with "webservices" a la WSDL/SOAP -- the same principles can be
> applied
> in a J2EE implementation environment.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (09)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|