- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 09:37:57 -0400
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 04:05:15PM -0600, Champion, Mike wrote: > > Agreed with concerns about the .. abruptness .. of the SOA vs > > REST material. I think part of the reason it is abrupt is > > because doing a rigorous definition of an architecture style > > should take a fair amount of text, but we/I haven't put much > > more time into it. > > I sympathize ... I took an action item at an editors call a couple of weeks > ago to work on the "WSA and the Web" section, and kept digging myself deeper > and deeper into the hole. The problem is that the Webarch, and SOA > definitions that I could find are so general that they not only can > encompass almost anything (as the Web does, of course) but can also > encompass each other, even though some consider them antonyms. > > I think we need to try to get some clarified text into the "heartbeat" > publication. I have come to kindof like the "Direct SOA" and You seem to have sent that out prematurely, Mike. FWIW, I don't think it's necessary to compare the breadth/generality of the competing architectural styles in order to compare them. We already have a framework for comparison provided by the gurus of software architecture; examine the properties induced by the constraints of each. This should be fairly straightforward. I'd be happy to help with that text. In fact, I think we've got some of it already, regarding visibility. I'll have to hunt that down; it's well buried. 8-) MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 09:35:53 UTC