[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>> SOA isn't meaningless.
>I'll believe that when someone can point me to an architecture that is
>demonstrably *not* a service-oriented architecture. For the term to be
>meaningful, there must be things that are clearly outside the
definition,
>and those things must be architectures.
>Michael Kay
>http://www.saxonica.com/
That is an excellent challenge, Michael. One might ask if a 'computer
architecture' is synonymous with a "service-oriented architecture". I
don't think they are even in the proximate neighborhood.
Of course, term/address expansion renders this effort moot quickly and
that is exactly what proposals attempt to get as many 'yes' marks as
possible. That quickly devolves into Spy vs Spy. A network with one
node is as meaningless as an undifferentiated address space. On the
other hand, a set with one node is possible and it can be empty.
So to limit (and one can dispute these) by straw:
1. A service is an act that returns a value to a user (bullard).
2. An architecture is an/a (any takers?). Assuming this is limited to
architecture as a meaningful term in computer systems, pick one:
American Heritage says "The overall design or structure of a computer
system, including the hardware and the software required to run it,
especially the internal structure of the microprocessor."
Or
"The design of a computer system. It sets the standard for all devices
that connect to it and all the software that runs on it. It is based on
the type of programs that will run (business, scientific) and the number
of programs that run concurrently."
Or expanded abstractly
(DOD) A framework or structure that portrays relationships among all the
elements of the subject force, system, or activity.
3. An orientation is a directed relationship (bullard).
I like this caveat but it leads to rabbit trails:
"All components in a computer are based on space (how much) and time
(how fast)."
I admit the high level of abstraction of the term 'SOA' but I don't
think it meets the same criteria as 'computer architecture' where
"The most common goals in computer architecture revolve around the
tradeoffs between cost and performance (i.e. speed), although other
considerations, such as size, weight, reliability, feature set,
expandability and power consumption, may be factors as well."
although there are definitely overlaps. It would hard to say an SOA has
for example, "weight".
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@saxonica.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:54 AM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); andrzej@chaeron.com; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Re: Major Historical SOA Milestone Today
> SOA isn't meaningless.
I'll believe that when someone can point me to an architecture that is
demonstrably *not* a service-oriented architecture. For the term to be
meaningful, there must be things that are clearly outside the
definition,
and those things must be architectures.
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
|
