- From: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 06:47:44 -0700
- To: "'Jim Webber'" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, <marco.adragna@kellogg.ox.ac.uk>, <public-ws-desc-state@w3.org>
I know it is off topic, yet (I will keep it short) ... Comments embedded ... > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-desc-state-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-ws-desc-state-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Webber > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:12 AM > To: marco.adragna@kellogg.ox.ac.uk; public-ws-desc-state@w3.org > Subject: Re: Debating on the usefulness of a standard > description for stateful service instances applicability, > creation, communication, ... <snip/> > > As for impedance mismatch, SOA and OO are different, and so of course you > have a mismatch. The skill is in transforming one to the other, not bodging <KS> To augment Jim's points, IMHO, SOA and OO are at different "layers" of abstraction - while services manifest the business interfaces, the objects manifest the underlying implementations. An instance of a service could very well be a set of objects. One of the cardinal sins of SOA (especially Web Services) is to expose an object graph as a set of (web) services directly. This creates the illusion that OO == SOA. The "RPC" mode of SOAP doesn't help either :o( </KS> Cheers -k.
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 09:48:30 UTC