RE: [epf-dev] Re: Architectural mechanisms - a bit confusing asitstands

[Chris.armstrong <chris.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In taking a look at the most recent build, there is no definition of two of the terms we've been discussing -- i.e. architecture and service. So as Peter suggested it would seem that, perhaps independent of how we resolve this particular issue, these terms should be defined in the OpenUP glossary (as many may know, these are defined in the glossary in RUP 7.0).  I also did not find a Concept: Architecture or Guideline: Architecture in the OpenUP. I would also think at least a concept would be in order for the Architecture work product and/or discipline.

In any case, I'm sure people wouldn't be surprised but I still like "architectural service" (but I'm still open to alternatives). To me, the problem with "architectural element" is it has more of a structural connotation versus a behavioral one. I think too many people think of architecture as a static thing, where I think it is far more important to consider architecture a behavioral thing (and secondarily a structural thing). I think that an "architectural service" is a type of "architectural element" (suggesting that there are other architectural elements that are not services).

While I understand the potential confusion around an architectural service and SOA, I'd like to suggest that we not be too influenced by the "flavor-of-the-day". That is, it's not like SOA invented the notion of services, or that if you have architectural services that you are doing SOA. In many cases, many people clarify the notion of a service in SOA and call it a "web service". 

Anyway, a couple of more pennies...

Thanks, Chris ~:|



-----Original Message-----
From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christoph Steindl
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 8:20 AM
To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [epf-dev] Re: Architectural mechanisms - a bit confusing asitstands ?

 From the last remarks (from Peter Eeles and Ana Pereira) on defining the terms and SOA, I thought back on the term "architectural service"...
While I initially thought it was a good term, I'm no longer sure.

Disadvantages:
*) it implies a functional view of the system, but there are other views as well (like operational view,...)
*) it has this SOA connotation

Why not use a slightly more general term like "architectural element"?
As mentioned earlier, Mark Denne uses this term in his book "Software by Numbers".
It simply means a piece of architecture.

Still, we would have to define architecture ;-(

    Christoph

_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev