« Services are independently deployed | Main | »



Todd Girvin
I read a white paper on MS Shadowfax that made intro'd with a description of the difference between SOA and OOP. (sorry for no ref since I read the word doc offline.) I swear these guys don't get it. They talk about SOA as if all the rules are different from OOP. Frankly, I don't think they get the fundamentals of OOD. Statements like "a web service should be autonomous" are so ambiguous as to not convey anything meaningful. Does it mean a web service shouldn't depend on/call another web service? Does it mean that you shouldn't have a protocol of interaction defined that requires one service to be called before another within the same module? If you can achieve this and therefore embrace a stateless model as did the early Web, yes it's less painful for the service developer. But, haven't we already been there with human interaction and learned that we need session/state management in order to carry on complex conversations? The white paper on Shadowfax seemed to jump to the other extreme. It seemed to assume that everything was done in a series of messages and that the core abstractions then are messages and handlers along the message channel. This seems to be going way to far since you then lose the self-documenting, type-safe, interface managed interaction we've grown to know and love in OO and basic Web Services.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Blog powered by Typepad

We Like