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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 8:43 AM
> To: SOA-RM
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus 
> Fabric.Stop It!"
> 
> This isn't necessarily true because I can have a closed 
> system that has a large, varied number of accessible services 
> but no services are allowed from the outside world.  Many 
> governance strategies assume this situation.  We get back 
> again that if we have one service and one consumer and that 
> service is currently sufficient for the needs of the 
> consumer, do we have a SOA?

Yes - albeit a minimal one.

Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
> On May 25, 2005, at 8:48 PM, Rex Brooks wrote:
> 
> > Any self-contained system, is by definition, not SOA. It 
> may have any 
> > number of functional services within it, but as long as it is 
> > self-contained it is not SOA. That's why I keep saying that 
> the atomic 
> > unit of SOA is a service AND a service consumer. I guess we have to 
> > qualify it to the extent that the systems are essentially separate, 
> > even if they may have endpoint interfaces that allow connection and 
> > other connections are possible or even occur, but they are not 
> > connected as an atomic unit until the service is invoked, or an 
> > agreement to allow invocation has been reached.
> >
> > That is of course, just my opinion, even though I state it as if it 
> > were fact.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Rex
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ------------------
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
> 7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508
> 
> 
>