Rex Brooks wrote:
> I understand better now, Duane,
You're welcome ;-)
>
> Thanks for the further reference materials.
>
> One question though: Shouldn't we start from the concrete now in a
> bottom-up approach since structural elements such as messaging
> protocols and the manifold other concerns recently expressed, exist at
> a very mature stage now?
In general, that is precisely what Matt and I did with the position
paper. We scoured many things that claim to be SOA and asked the questions:
1. What elements are common to all?
2. How can we describe those abstractly? (example - rather than say
"registry", we use "advertising" as a concept).
3. How does each element relate to each other element (this is far more
complex than the candidate reference model appears to portray at first.
Please read the PPT I uploaded - it has several questions that I would
like this group to provide answers to. I do not know the answers so I
am hoping some of you have some good ideas ;-)
4. What must be present for something to be "Service oriented" in
architecture (design principles)?
5. ...
Duane
>
>
--
***********
Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
***********
