[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!"
> -----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 > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]