Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Re: Major Historical SOA Milestone Today
 Yes, I am. That is precisely the viewpoint where that description belongs. Ever try to sell that to a retail manager? I get the rolling eyeballs everyday at my job from the sales manager who wants to sound smart but not too smart. No one buys from a guy who intimidates on the first pass. Here in geekDom, we are comfortable with smart people. The other 95% of the world isn't. We scare them. Again, I didn't say it was precise, I have been careful to note the nature of attributed semantics, and I've been careful to explain the concepts of viewpoints and proximity to situation semantics. I have also refuted your challenge that 'service architecture' is a root concept that subsumes all others so meaningless because indistinguishable. If it is re-branding, aka, same old wine in a brand new bottle, then it is the same as XML, the same as 'metaverse', the same as most of the 'new inventions' which make up this "unpredictable astounding and innovative" web that grinds out myths and heroes as a byproduct of it's imperial ambitions. (How's that for begging the question? HA! :-). Re-branding concepts for mass consumption is the key to stealing from the middle. It gets rid of the old guys who are trouble, substitutes the more manipulable new guys, and redirects the revenues from the original inventors to the posers and their bosses. It makes the customers feel smart and in the know. As long as the concepts translate reasonably tightly to the means of implementation, they are useful, meaningful and appropriate for the tasks at hand. If we are going to gloss over complexity, let's get our story straight. Computers, objects, and interfaces are just stuff. To buy a product, a customer must look into the brochure, and as in a mirror, see their own face. The service concepts work well for that purpose. If the ontology is coherent, it is a straightforward effort to transform from that mental scaffolding down to any of a number of implementation means of which, OOP is one. The very last thing one wants to attempt when selling a computer architecture is to teach the customer computer science. One may want to make them believe they are learning that just as HTMLers were taught to believe they were programming when building web pages. After a time, they were, but in the beginning, it was just markup and links. Ever since that time, this has been the way of the web. "As the twig is bent..." len From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@s...] > I'd say that was what you were trying to implement, not what > you were attempting to specify. How could you create an > object-oriented program without the implementation? You're obviously thinking of objects purely at the coding level. You don't have to. The essential notions of separation between interface and implementation scale up. So do notions of encapsulation, delegation, and type hierarchy (though perhaps not implementation-level inheritance). A company that provides payroll services is an object in a business architecture; it's an instance of a type, which can be substituted by other instances of the same type; it holds encapsulated data; and its internal implementation is hidden behind an interface. The service it provides is not just defined by a functional interface, but by quality metrics including performance, availability, security, and potential for change. Just like code objects. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
