<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Architecture, Business Rules, and Aspects, oh my !</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.udidahan.com/2003/11/14/architecture-business-rules-and-aspects-oh-my/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.udidahan.com/2003/11/14/architecture-business-rules-and-aspects-oh-my/</link>
	<description>Enterprise Development Expert &#38; SOA Specialist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:16:10 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jason Olson</title>
		<link>http://www.udidahan.com/2003/11/14/architecture-business-rules-and-aspects-oh-my/comment-page-1/#comment-15</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Olson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2003 04:52:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wp_630.weblogs.us/archives/8#comment-15</guid>
		<description>When I say OOP, I&#039;m just referring to the core principles of encapsulation, inheritance, and perhaps polymorphism. I&#039;m not saying that objects should ignore the lessons learned with SOA and once again tightly couple the data with the operations on that data.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I say OOP, I&#8217;m just referring to the core principles of encapsulation, inheritance, and perhaps polymorphism. I&#8217;m not saying that objects should ignore the lessons learned with SOA and once again tightly couple the data with the operations on that data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Olson</title>
		<link>http://www.udidahan.com/2003/11/14/architecture-business-rules-and-aspects-oh-my/comment-page-1/#comment-14</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Olson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2003 04:39:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wp_630.weblogs.us/archives/8#comment-14</guid>
		<description>Well, I wish I was better at playing &quot;Devil&#039;s Advocate&quot; so I could further this conversation more but I agree with you on a lot of things. 

Before I state my beliefs, perhaps I should clarify that when it comes to SOA I am still a relative beginner and am going on what I have read from people like Clemens Vasters. 

As a developer, one thing I truly appreciate about SOAs are the seperation between data and the operations that can/can&#039;t be done on that data. In a world where sharing data is becoming increasingly easy and important, I think this is a vital distinction to make. The only reason I was pointing out the difference between OOA and OOP, was to say that the implementation of the services themselves can often take advantage of different aspects of OOP. 

As for implementing an SOA vs OOA, I think there are other issues that need to be considered other than just making the problem disappear. I think an important thing to consider is simplicity vs. simplexity. There is no &quot;silver bullet&quot; that will solve all problems. I believe there are simply situations that an SOA is overkill for. For example, a personal website, or a simple RSS feed generator. However, when dealing with a series of (perhaps complex) business rules for an enterprise application, I think an SOA is a better fit by default then an OOA. This may very well be common sense and I may be &quot;preaching to the choir&quot; but I thought I would lay that out there.  

Overall, I would just say keep up the great work and I look forward to hearing what you have to say in the future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I wish I was better at playing &#8220;Devil&#8217;s Advocate&#8221; so I could further this conversation more but I agree with you on a lot of things. </p>
<p>Before I state my beliefs, perhaps I should clarify that when it comes to SOA I am still a relative beginner and am going on what I have read from people like Clemens Vasters. </p>
<p>As a developer, one thing I truly appreciate about SOAs are the seperation between data and the operations that can/can&#8217;t be done on that data. In a world where sharing data is becoming increasingly easy and important, I think this is a vital distinction to make. The only reason I was pointing out the difference between OOA and OOP, was to say that the implementation of the services themselves can often take advantage of different aspects of OOP. </p>
<p>As for implementing an SOA vs OOA, I think there are other issues that need to be considered other than just making the problem disappear. I think an important thing to consider is simplicity vs. simplexity. There is no &#8220;silver bullet&#8221; that will solve all problems. I believe there are simply situations that an SOA is overkill for. For example, a personal website, or a simple RSS feed generator. However, when dealing with a series of (perhaps complex) business rules for an enterprise application, I think an SOA is a better fit by default then an OOA. This may very well be common sense and I may be &#8220;preaching to the choir&#8221; but I thought I would lay that out there.  </p>
<p>Overall, I would just say keep up the great work and I look forward to hearing what you have to say in the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Udi Dahan</title>
		<link>http://www.udidahan.com/2003/11/14/architecture-business-rules-and-aspects-oh-my/comment-page-1/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>Udi Dahan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2003 04:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wp_630.weblogs.us/archives/8#comment-13</guid>
		<description>To your first note, I believe that as an architecture, the service oriented camp is far ahead of the OO camp in many aspects ways :)
This discussion is focused on business rules as a response to the white-paper to which I linked. I find that extensibility, although important, does not outweigh the decreased coupling between service layers and the increased cohesion within service layers found in SO systems.

The reason that I refer to the OO paradigm, and not just to OOA, is because of the statement that &quot;everything is an object&quot;. The &quot;everything&quot; points me in the wrong direction. Although it doesn&#039;t explicitly state that I should interact with objects directly all the time, style RMI, I find that that&#039;s exactly what happens. This introduces all sorts of problems.

When I see a problem, my first reaction is not to look for the &quot;tool&quot; to fix it - AOP for interception in order to enforce business rules - but rather try to make the problem disappear by itself by changing my way of viewing the world. As was shown in the article, the business rules &quot;problem&quot; of interception just disappears when going the SOA route.

Because of this perception of the world, I am constantly looking for problems that I am currently having that can be evaporated ( TOC ). I am even proactive, currently looking for problems in the SOA that may be evaporated in yet another world view.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To your first note, I believe that as an architecture, the service oriented camp is far ahead of the OO camp in many aspects ways <img src='http://www.udidahan.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
This discussion is focused on business rules as a response to the white-paper to which I linked. I find that extensibility, although important, does not outweigh the decreased coupling between service layers and the increased cohesion within service layers found in SO systems.</p>
<p>The reason that I refer to the OO paradigm, and not just to OOA, is because of the statement that &#8220;everything is an object&#8221;. The &#8220;everything&#8221; points me in the wrong direction. Although it doesn&#8217;t explicitly state that I should interact with objects directly all the time, style RMI, I find that that&#8217;s exactly what happens. This introduces all sorts of problems.</p>
<p>When I see a problem, my first reaction is not to look for the &#8220;tool&#8221; to fix it &#8211; AOP for interception in order to enforce business rules &#8211; but rather try to make the problem disappear by itself by changing my way of viewing the world. As was shown in the article, the business rules &#8220;problem&#8221; of interception just disappears when going the SOA route.</p>
<p>Because of this perception of the world, I am constantly looking for problems that I am currently having that can be evaporated ( TOC ). I am even proactive, currently looking for problems in the SOA that may be evaporated in yet another world view.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Olson</title>
		<link>http://www.udidahan.com/2003/11/14/architecture-business-rules-and-aspects-oh-my/comment-page-1/#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Olson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2003 00:43:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wp_630.weblogs.us/archives/8#comment-12</guid>
		<description>Hello. I mostly agree with your emphasis on the SOA over OOA. There are more reasons I think to emphasize (which I&#039;m sure you just left out because you were focusing on business rules). One of the biggest advantages to an SOA, in my opinion, is extensibility. An SOA can grow a lot more quickly and greater than an OOA. 

Just a quick note, I think the line should be drawn between SOA and OOA, not SOA and an OO paradign. This is because the actual implementation of the services are in an OO paradigm. That&#039;s just knit-picking though. Greg opinions!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello. I mostly agree with your emphasis on the SOA over OOA. There are more reasons I think to emphasize (which I&#8217;m sure you just left out because you were focusing on business rules). One of the biggest advantages to an SOA, in my opinion, is extensibility. An SOA can grow a lot more quickly and greater than an OOA. </p>
<p>Just a quick note, I think the line should be drawn between SOA and OOA, not SOA and an OO paradign. This is because the actual implementation of the services are in an OO paradigm. That&#8217;s just knit-picking though. Greg opinions!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

