river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McGrady <mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com>
Subject Re: A Conversation: was Split JINI
Date Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:27:54 GMT

On Dec 24, 2008, at 12:29 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Michael McGrady
> <mmcgrady@topiatechnology.com> wrote:
>> You really don't understand what SOA is, Gregg.  You are talking like
>> someone who says they don't give a damn about gravity because it is  
>> just a
>> theoretical construct.  The questions are way, way, way deeper and  
>> more
>> subtle tthan you are allowing for here.
> I think you guys have exhausted the subject, and I think it is time  
> to end it.
> To summarize the views, in an analogy of buildings.
> Michael's view; SOA == The architecture is an expression, sometimes
> limited to the piece of paper it is expressed on, or even only as a
> thought in the architects mind.
> Gregg's view; SOA == The purpose of architecture is primarily to
> construct buildings. Most architecture in expressed form is in the
> buildings themselves, not admired residing on a piece of paper.
> So, Michael; You analogy with gravity is IMHO almost opposite. You
> have a more theoretical definition, and ignores the pragmatic use of
> of those theories. So, fine... Big Deal. Let it rest, the last 3-4
> rounds on the subject has not inched the discussion in any direction,
> and none will abandon the principle of definitions.

The pragmatic use of SOA is in the business rules made by businessmen:  
the creation of the Sz in SOA.  That is what i stress.  Your focus on  
the IT structures trivializes what I am saying.  I was enjoying he  
debate but you are right that it was as advertised more of a  
conversation with gregg than something appropriate to the list.   Your  
reaction to the gravity is interesting.  Anyway, as i said, i enjoyed  
the conversation, Gregg.  hanks.


View raw message