Paul Brown is
grumpy. Why is
Paul grumpy? He attributes it to buzzwords and analyst predictions but his strongest objection is to Gartner analyst
Yefim Natis creating a new version of SOA.
SOA is a style of decomposing a software system, not a vendor or an analyst property. (Note the lack of a conspicuous "™"...)
It is not all bad news as Yefim’s definition of orchestration seems spot on. However, points of view diverge to the narrow scoping of SOA to client-server interactions. Paul offers a counter definition.
A service is an autonomous, opaque software unit that consumes and/or produces well-defined messages.
A service-oriented architecture for a software system is a decomposition into services.
In support of this definition, Paul makes the acute observation that interactions and data protocols are aspects of SOA but do not define it. He suggests that people look to the
definition of SOA and then read about SOA patterns as documented by
Drogos Manolescu and Boris Lulinsky.
