Skip to main content

Service Oriented Architecture vs Service Oriented Integration

As we've discussed previously, Service Oriented Integration and Service Oriented Architecture are not the same thing. Most organizations have progressed to some level of Service Oriented Integration. (Often this is bottom-up, as the tech teams have just imported the technology as an easier way to get this done. Less frequently it's top-down, where the technology approach has been selected specifically as part of the solution to the business problem presented.)

When existing applications are adjusted to expose granular business functionality, we refer to that as exposing “services”. More specifically, exposing business oriented web services – business transactions or small components of business functionality are exposed for use by different applications.

Example – The company’s primary Customer Management System contains the customer data. A customer may call the customer service number and request a change of address – with the customer service representative accessing the Customer Management System to perform the task. However, if the company decides they wish to add the ability for customers to self-change their addresses in the Customer Website, exposing the change of address function of the Customer Management System for access by (integration into) the Customer Website is the way to go.

This is Service Oriented Integration - a subset and building block to SOA, Service Oriented Architecture.

When we begin to model new applications (or major functionality changes to existing applications) as granular business services with standardized interfaces, combined together to present a larger group of business operations, then the IT systems have entered the realm of true Service Oriented Architecture.

Service Oriented Integration:

- Targets “Integration Spaghetti”
- Moves integration logic out of the applications into the central integration space.
- Creates integration reuse.
- Allows for composite functionality – composite services.

Service Oriented Architecture aka Enterprise SOA:

- Changes the Application Design Pattern
- Targets Narrow Business Functions with matching IT System Functions
- Decomposes traditional systems into their business processes.

Service Oriented Integration often starts with developers grabbing the latest tools to ease integration. When it becomes an enterprise effort it moves to ‘just a better middleware’. With maturity and proper management it moves onward to an improved integration pattern.

Service Oriented Architecture aka Enterprise SOA presents a new application design pattern focused on creating service components which are effectively (either by manual coding or by tools such as BPM and Portal tools) assembled into applications. By extension it creates a new business to IT interaction pattern, as IT starts talking to the business about granular business process functionality rather than about departmental functionality.

Later, as the business reorganizes business functions, IT gains a similar capability to reorganize the IT ‘systems’ via the assembled service components.

This is the end state goal of Generation 1 SOA. Generation 2 SOA virtualizes the the component deployment environments (the Cloud) and fully utilitizes underlying supporting IT or even business functionality. A very logical repositioning of Generation 1 SOA goals against the evolving state of IT resources.

Popular posts from this blog

Integration Spaghetti™

  I’ve been using the term Integration Spaghetti™ for the past 9 years or so to describe what happens as systems connectivity increases and increases to the point of … unmanageability, indeterminate impact, or just generally a big mess.  A standard line of mine is “moving from spaghetti code to spaghetti connections is not an improvement”. (A standard “point to point connection mess” slide, by enterprise architect Jerry Foster from 2001.) In the past few days I’ve been meeting with a series of IT managers at a large customer and have come up with a revised definition for Integration Spaghetti™ : Integration Spaghetti™ is when the connectivity to/from an application is so complex that everyone is afraid of touching it.  An application with such spaghetti becomes nearly impossible to replace.  Estimates of change impact to the application are frequently wrong by orders of magnitude.  Interruption in the integration functioning are always a major disast...
Read more

Solving Integration Chaos - Past Approaches

A U.S. Fortune 50's systems interconnect map for 1 division, "core systems only". Integration patterns began changing 15 years ago. Several early attempts were made to solve the increasing problem of the widening need for integration… Enterprise Java Beans (J2EE / EJB's) attempted to make independent callable codelets. Coupling was too tight, the technology too platform specific. Remote Method Invocation (Java / RMI) attempted to make anything independently callable, but again was too platform specific and a very tightly coupled protocol. Similarly on the Microsoft side, DCOM & COM+ attempted to make anything independently and remotely callable. However, as with RMI the approach was extremely platform and vendor specific, and very tightly coupled. MQ created a reliable independent messaging paradigm, but the cost and complexity of operation made it prohibitive for most projects and all but the largest of Enterprise IT shops which could devote a focused technology...
Read more

From Spaghetti Code to Spaghetti Connections

Twenty five years ago my boss handed me the primary billing program and described a series of new features needed. The program was about 4 years old and had been worked on by 5 different programmers. It had an original design model, but between all the modifications, bug fixes, patches and quick new features thrown in, the original design pattern was impossible to discern. Any pattern was impossible to discern. It had become, to quote what’s titled the most common architecture pattern of today, ‘a big ball of mud’. After studying the program for several days, I informed my boss the program was untouchable. The effort to make anything more than a minor adjustment carried such a risk, as the impact could only be guessed at, that it was easier and less risky to rewrite it from scratch. If they had considered the future impact, they never would have let a key program degenerate that way. They would have invested the extra effort to maintain it’s design, document it property, and consider ...
Read more