[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] OO vs. SOA and what goes into a service
Ken I missed all the fun in this message traffic! I would say that comparing OO with services smacks of apples and oranges; or bricks and buildings. OO itself has nothing to say about 'action at a distance'; whereas SOA is all about 'using someone else's service'. (Using your own service on a single machine is the same kind of limit case as using an object via RMI/SOAP/REST) Issues such as sending actions in messages is more an issue of good taste and effective implementation than anything else. So, I would say that SOA is an architectural style that flows from the simple supposition that the target of an action is something that you cannot know whether it belongs to someone else or not. When you have that kind of assumption, all kinds of implications follow; which leads to the abstraction of using a service to access a capability. You might well implement an SOA using OO technology, but the abstractions that you must deal with (descriptions, policies, semantics, messages on wires) are not OO concepts at all. I guess that that is probably muddying the waters ... :) Frank On Jan 22, 2008, at 10:03 PM, Duane Nickull wrote: > My favorite in this area is the definition of “Resource”. The W3C > defines it as “anything that can have an identifier”. > > Gah!!!! > > D > > > On 1/22/08 7:57 PM, "Ken Laskey" <klaskey@mitre.org> wrote: > >> I'm not talking implementation (SOA can use OO principles to >> develop the code) but general mindset. We once agreed that asking >> "what is a service?" is similar to asking "what is an object?" >> because the answer is it could be anything that fits your problem. >> My thought is a service is not necessarily a good object that you >> operate on but more like an operation that you may be feeding >> objects to. >> >> Again, this is all at the concept level, no implementation. >> >> Ken >> >> On Jan 22, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Duane Nickull wrote: >> >>> In SOA, is it necessary that there is an object behind the >>> service? We talk to the interface (service)and don’t really care >>> what is behind it. Assuming there is an object could be errant >>> and architecturally un-elegant. >>> >>> Duane >>> >>> >>> On 1/22/08 3:05 PM, "Ken Laskey" <klaskey@mitre.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Is it fair (or at least not too distorted) to say that with OO we >>>> define an object and look for what we can do to it (i.e. its >>>> methods) while with SOA we identify what we want to do (i.e. >>>> business functions) and then, if appropriate, look for objects to >>>> do it to? >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ********************************************************************** >>> "Speaking only for myself" >>> Senior Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc. >>> Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com >>> Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com >>> My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury >>> Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html >>> >>> ********************************************************************** >>> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Ken Laskey >> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >> 7151 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >> McLean VA 22102-7508 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > ********************************************************************** > "Speaking only for myself" > Senior Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc. > Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com > Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com > My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury > Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html > **********************************************************************
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]