I think if you look at WOA as pretty much REST style then of course "Resource Orientation" makes sense. Somehow the acronyms ROA and WOA both give me the creeps. WOA is kind of "Elmer Fudd" and ROA is kind of "Scooby Doo".
I find that where WOA becomes a bit more architecturally flavored is when people consider the proper relationships between Web systems and Enterprise systems. In this occasion, I find Enterprise Architects actually taking a very real architectural approach to interfacing these systems, but that it's neither WOA or ROA but rather Event Driven Architecture (EDA) which is the norm for this. WOA by itself is an implementation choice, ROA by itself *might* qualify as Enterprise Architecture, if barely, but EDA is a very established norm and I'm increasingly seeing these techniques applied to the WOA "domain". My 2 cents, Miko --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Agreedon ROA , its a design approach not an architectural one. > > Steve > > > 2008/5/20 Alexander Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 5/17/08, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> +1 WOA isn't an architectural approach its an implementation approach. > > > > I kinda agree, although I know that the unique addressability of > > resources in a WOA (what I call a Resource oriented Architecture) has > > a huge impact on how people design systems that pushes this beyond > > mere implementation. > > > > Alexander > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps > > ------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ -------- > > >
