[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints - Number of services
<post> In a nutshell - do I think the number of services plays a part in the pattern/anti-pattern debate? Yes I do, because this is not a debate about service orientation in its purest sense - it's a debate about what is 'good practice' versus 'bad practice' when assessing the fates of our Customers (internal/external) and attempting to deliver an architecture that Reduces cost/complexity, not increases it. Put another way, if the RM TC is Where the Pure Mathematicians reside, then is not Blueprint TC where the Applied Math is carried out? </post> ...and... <post> I think the Internet is a perfect example of 'pure-play' SOA, conceptual But in no way a model that could be delivered (although it could be synthesised) into an Enterprise </post> ...it sounds as though your company (as has Amazon) has performed the *synthesis* very well. Don't distract from my argument (as per <post>1, above) Regards, Marc. -----Original Message----- From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] Sent: 01 November 2005 17:00 To: Davies Marc; Miko Matsumura; Jones, Steve G; Beack, Theo; Ken Laskey Cc: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints - Number of services Marc: I find your argument completely illogical. Web Services are layered over the internet. Are they also not SOA? I have successfully ordered books from Amazon via the internet - that certainly qualifies its usefulness as a business platform. In fact, several people have noted that the B2C and B2B models of the internet seem to be relatively popular of late. AS1 and AS2 are used by Walmart for their supply chain. I will also assert that the concept of corporate intranets is the same as the internet, merely scoped to a LAN or WAN controlled by one entity. This shoots apart your argument that the internet is not a model that can be delivered into an enterprise. In fact, my employer uses software that makes the lines very blurred between the two. I am sorry - I do not buy the argument that the internet is not SOA. Duane -----Original Message----- From: Davies Marc [mailto:Marc.Davies@uk.fujitsu.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 8:37 AM To: Duane Nickull; Miko Matsumura; Jones, Steve G; Beack, Theo; Ken Laskey Cc: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints - Number of services Ah, but the point of SOA in a business context is the architectural control and standardisation. I agree that the Internet is service oriented [anarchy ;o)] - absolutely cannot disagree with your inferences. However, *does* it (not '*can* it') deliver a quantifiable methodology for understanding the cost of delivering a service and controlling the initiation, production and disposition of services to deliver reduced complexity? No I don't think it does. I think the Internet is a perfect example of 'pure-play' SOA, conceptual but in no waya model that could be delivered (although it could be synthesused) into an Enterprise - in the same way that the Open Source concept (as epitomised by sourceforge) 'can' deliver fantastic solutions [frequently] driven by 1st class development methodologies - 'doesn't' deliver a solution that an Enterprise could safely adopt in and of itself, as the business drivers conflict. Now, I accept that from a purist viewpoint we might say that it doesn't matter about the higher level abstraction epitomised by the business focus (and I have no idea of the v10 framework from RM BTW, I'm still trying to find time to properly assess v09.so it may be there), however - one of the critical reasons for global interest in SOA is the belief (outside of technical circles) that there might finally be an architectural prinicplke not so firmly bound in technical terms, that the divide between business and IT could be overcome. In terms of Blueprinting - are we are looking for 'how-to'? - as the RM TC has demonstrated, its easy to get caught up in the circular debate (after all, only a few weeks ago on that TC the debate "what is a service" was still raging away). I would assert that we need to be pragmatic and business-oriented ourselves while trying to deliver into this TC. In a nutshell - do I think the number of services plays a part in the pattern/anti-pattern debate? Yes I do, because this is not a debate about service orientation in its purest sense - it's a debate about what is 'good practice' versus 'bad practice' when assessing the fates of our customers (internal/external) and attempting to deliver an architecture that reduces cost/complexity, not increases it. Put another way, if the RM TC is where the Pure Mathematicians reside, then is not Blueprint TC where the Applied Math is carried out? Best, Marc. <ducks after typing.., :o) > -----Original Message----- From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] Sent: 01 November 2005 15:25 To: Davies Marc; Miko Matsumura; Jones, Steve G; Beack, Theo; Ken Laskey Cc: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints - Number of services <post> -----Original Message----- From: Davies Marc [mailto:Marc.Davies@uk.fujitsu.com] I think Duane's example of the Internet perfectly underscores this principle - inasmuch as the Internet is a collection of millions of services - it is (IMHO) *not* an SOA - unless we're talking Service Oriented Anarchy :-) ... it doesn't conform to architectural disciplines, anyone can code how they want, anyone can deploy what they want, there are no checks to ensure services deliver on their promised capability (I could go on). Sure, its an excellent example of how millions of services can be operating - but, its also an illustration of how millions can end up delivering very poor service, to analogise - if you google the 'wrong' search string - you end up with 1 million 'hits' = meaningless. </post> Marc: Hmm - I strongly disagree with this assertion. The internet has the same patterns as web services. Request-response is the primary mechanism, returning either a success state or a possible error code. It is message oriented and event driven. Each service may have specific policies, metadata (<meta> tags along with the search engines synopsis), a contract for use (in most cases it is freely available to everyone who asks) and there are multiple mechanisms for advertising the availability of services. One of the core tenets of interface based design is that anyone can implement whatever they want behind the service interface. It is not limited to just coding either - you could deploy chimpanzees with abacuses who then serialize a response back into html. The point is that the interface hides the implementation and insulates the consumer from those details. This is another of the core tenets of SOA. Your claim that the internet delivers poor services is also unquantifiable. From a pragmatic architectural standpoint, the value of the content is moot. It is the architecture that is SOA, not the usefulness of the content. Google roughly equates to the concept of the advertising/discovery mechanism in the SOA Reference Model. Yes - getting hundreds or thousands of results is sub-optimal, however the patterns are the same. The internet is the single largest SOA on the planet. Duane
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]