[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop It!"
Rex: I will argue that to be service oriented in respect to architecture, one does not require a service consumer be present, only that a service and corresponding components are present and a service consumer can use the service. Nevertheless, illustrating this in appendix B and also later in a RA will be very useful to users of our spec. I am sure that there will also be plenty of opportunities for people to write books, articles about how to use the RM. Duane Rex Brooks wrote: > I tend to think of RM describing what makes a house different from a > habitat. As it relates to SOA, the analogy for me lies in describing > what constitutes being inside the interfaces involved. At this point > we are still describing only the service. I am assuming still that we > will move on to include the service consumer as well since I hold that > an SOA needs both. > > Ciao, > Rex > > At 11:06 AM -0700 5/24/05, Duane Nickull wrote: > >> The RM does not necessarily have to get into cardinality rules IMO, >> unless they are very obvious. In the case of a house, you may not >> make consistent rules stating that every house has to have at least >> three walls since a wall can be curved or any number of walls from 3 >> up. You may be able to infer from the relationships that there is a >> certain cardinality if the RM for a house said that each room has one >> door. That would declare an association between the number of rooms >> to the number of doors. >> >> Structural integrity is an aspect of a wall, which must be >> specialized for each architecture based on a number criteria. The RM >> declares what the wall is and its' purpose, the architect has the job >> of specifying the actual walls to be used for each architecture and >> ensuring they map back to requirements. >> >> You are right - analogies are not definitions, however I have found >> them very useful in conveying the meaning. >> >> Duane >> >> Michael Stiefel wrote: >> >>> Does the RM understand that some of the concepts are unique and some >>> multiple (without an exact number, you could have one circular wall, >>> 3 walls, 4 walls, etc.)? >>> >>> Using your analogy, how does the RM deal with concepts such as >>> structural integrity. Structural integrity would apply to all house >>> RAs. In my way of thinking concepts such as endpoints or >>> orchestration are analogous to this. >>> >>> In the analogy I would see the reference architecture as Colonial >>> American Reference Architecture, or even more specifically Colonial >>> American Cape Ann, or Colonial American Greek Revival reference >>> architectures. >>> >>> Analogies are useful, but they are not definitions. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> At 12:56 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: >>> >>>> RA means Reference Architecture. As per the previous emails on >>>> this subject, it is a generalized architecture. >>>> >>>> The relationship is that architects use a RM as a guiding model >>>> when building a RA. >>>> >>>> For example, if you are architecting a house, an RM may explain the >>>> concepts of gravity, a 3D environment, walls, foundations, floors, >>>> roofs, ceilings etc. It is abstract however. There is nothing >>>> specific like a wall with measurements such as 8 feet high. Note >>>> that the RM has only one each of these things - it does not have 4, >>>> 16, 23 walls, just one as a concept. >>>> The architect may uses this model to create a specific architecture >>>> for a specific house (accounting for such things as property, >>>> incline, climate etc) or an architect MAY elect to use it to build >>>> a more generalized reference architecture. The latter is often >>>> done by architects who design houses. When they sell a house, they >>>> must often re-architect the RA for specific implementation details >>>> such as incline of land, climate, facing the sun etc.. >>>> >>>> So why do we need a RM? Simple - we now have logical divisions >>>> amongst the components of a house and what they mean. That way, >>>> when a company says " we are a flooring company..", that is >>>> meaningful since we all know what that means. The same applies to >>>> a roofing company. Without the basic consensus on the logical >>>> divisions, a roofing contractor may also try to include the ceiling >>>> and walls as part of his offerings. >>>> That would not work and not allow the general contractor to build a >>>> house very easily since there may not be consensus upon the >>>> division of labor and components to build the house. >>>> >>>> Do you guys think an explanation of this nature may be good to >>>> include in the introduction section? >>>> >>>> Duane >>>> >>>> Chiusano Joseph wrote: >>>> >>>>> What is an RA? What is the relationship between an RM and an RA? >>>>> What is >>>>> the RM->RA path for SOA? >>>>> >>>>> Matt also submitted last week (I believe) that we may not even >>>>> need an >>>>> RA. How should that change our notion of RM, if at all? >>>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> Joseph Chiusano >>>>> Booz Allen Hamilton >>>>> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >>>> > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]