--- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/5/27 Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Jones" > > <jones.steveg@> wrote: > >> > >> Some people think that SOA = Web Services therefore Web Services > >> are SOA > >> > >> They are wrong. > > > > Agreed. > > > >> > >> Architecture != high-level design > > > > Well, that's not all that it is but architecture is > > design. "Architecture is the structure...". That sounds very much > > like design. > > I'm beginning to realise that the principles that I've used for > many a long year come from my personal experience. Now I do tend > to inflict this view on people (with some success in terms of > improving IT) but what I'm using now is the IEEE definition where > it talks about the governance of design being architecture. That > to me makes quite a bit of sense.
I would agree but we should be careful not to simply equate governance and architecture. Just a list of principles/constraints isn't sufficient as an architecture either. I think an architecture identifies the high level components and their relationships (classic definition of design), and also the principles which guide designs that refine the higher-level design (the aesthetics, if you will). ... > Agreed as these tend to govern the design. You are right in that > the boundary isn't clear but I would say that architecture has > become a massively popular term in the last few years with every > man and his dog doing architecture (I've said it before that most > SO work is really SOD). Agreed. ... > Actually you are right it isn't just levels of abstraction it is > principles. Architecture gives the structure and form (I tend to > use it to organise teams at the start of the project/programme) > which then guides the rest, this is why I think it is different to > design. Ah, it's good to see we agree. :-) -Rob
