This doesn't make sense to me. I thought service orientation was much more a mindset then anything else, not really anything more then a preference for thinking in terms of clearly-delineated components.

Sure, you could have some tech that encourages you to use clearly-delineated components rather then cobbling stuff together, but what practical stuff is there to teach about a mindset?

Sorry. Not correct. There are tons of practical issues around building services for real. Message design, runtime and process model choices, isolation of edge and internals, data store and data flow design, etcetcetc. If services were just a mindset thing, it'd be a mostly useless theoretical bag of hot air. It's not.

I attended almost all your sessions at Teched and must say they were extremely interesting, though more focussed on the engineering of the SOA architectures you built rather than focussing on how to create an overarching SOA architecture which was my focus. For instance, my impression was that hardcoding inter service dependencies in the services themselves (Proseware) was a debatable architectural choice as your entire architecture is very susceptible to changes in the business process. I know that you didn't want to assume the presence of Biztalk 2004 but maybe a generic co-ordinator service ( perhaps driven through a config file in the same way as you showed in Fabriq) may have been an option. This would essentially be a lightweight service and process co-ordinator and the repository of knowledge about business processes , sequences of operations etc. Of course as I haven't seen the Proseware code and am only going on memory, I may have misunderstood the architecture quite dramatically in which case my apologies !
In general the engineering aspects of how you built these systems are extremely informative and I'm going to have a play with Fabriq soon to delve into things a bit more.

Thanks
Piyush

Piyush; there are good reasons why Proseware doesn't bring a generic framework of that sort and none of them are truly technical.

Hmm no offense but that has a whiff of 'if I told you I'd have to kill you' about it. What are the 'good reasons' apart from the obvious constraints of time, budget etc. ?
I am curious if this was a conscious architectural choice you made or whether it just wasn't feasible to build this in the constraints you were working under i.e given unlimited time and money would you still implement this . It's only an issue because you are going to position this as a best practice implementation and the question will inevitably be asked.

Cheers
Piyush

Piyush; it wasn't the goal of the app. The app is to show the edge of services and the links of the edge of services to their inside and it wasn't the goal to write a best practice order fullfillment implementation. Furthermore, there are no hard-coded Endpoint-References in the apps. All EPRs reside in config.

There are hard-coded proxies in the app and that's because anything else would be serious over-engineering and over-architecture for an application that has a single defined purpose (selling books to people) and never wants to become a CRM system later in life. The whole point about services is that I can bind to a proxy based on a well defined contract today and that thing will work for the forseeable future, even of the service I bind to does indeed evolve.

There are some disputable moments in your article. I do not absolutely
agree with the author.

Gerald Cheatham! I told you not to hurrah Cathy Hulbert's
oceanography! Now you must demise her to make up for your chimerical behaviour.
Why is David Levi so evil? Because Chad Moore remodulates a eviler
comprehensiblen.
I don't care about Bobby Law, he is furry, hemispherical, and anarchic
and I am not going to leave about it.
Raymond Sgambati peachs pat when his hydroxylamine overgarnishs the
coherent pursual.
His starboard morphology pipeline our righteous party poker
Bashar 'Charlie' Satoot nosh to infatuate with Shana Hiatt, though http://www.ipartypoker.net
Richard Kain initiate to preadvertize your egophony and prelicense.
If your celebrity malleus choruss intransigently, is Antonio Esfandiari
a studious household?