RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop It!"

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

For those interested, David Linthicum on Orchestration and SOA:
http://www.grandcentral.com/view/dev.page.basic/blog

Joe

Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Bashioum [mailto:cbashioum@mitre.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 5:58 PM
> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus 
> Fabric.Stop It!"
> 
>  Good point.  However, I would still say that SOA does not 
> care if orchestration is actually done or not, only that the 
> services are orchestratable.  
> 
> There are many SOA implementations that do not currently have 
> any orchestration, though they do have aggregation.  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Metz Rebekah [mailto:metz_rebekah@bah.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 5:01 PM
> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus 
> Fabric.Stop It!"
> 
> > Can I ask you what would make a single service care that 
> the consumer
> is
> > invoking it as part of an orchestration?  Why should the 
> service care.
> > It's function is simply to facilitate the invocation request.  If 
> > someone created a dependency on the service to know about 
> the state of 
> > other service invocation requests, that would be very bad 
> architecture 
> > IMO and also violate the principles of autonomicity (not really an 
> > English word but you get the idea).
> 
> Ah!  So here lies an important distinction that gets back to 
> the house/community analogy - and what makes SOA a SOA?  Is 
> SOA == the house or is SOA == community?  A single service 
> probably wouldn't care whether or not it is being invoked as 
> part of an orchestration, much like a house doesn't care if 
> it is in a planned development or urban development or a 
> cornfield or an island.  But, a SOA may very well care about 
> it, much like a community cares about things like the 
> positioning of individual houses and green space (which don't 
> directly related to an individual house).
> 
>  
> > I will propose that we accept this axiom:
> > 
> > "Services should not have to have explicit knowledge of the 
> states of 
> > other services called by a consumer that invokes them"
> 
> So this goes back to the service as an operational concept, 
> and I think leads me to think that we are working toward a 
> definition at the "community" level and not at the "house" level.
> 
> Rebekah
> 
> 
> 
>