Related
One of the key benefits provided by Onion architecture is the ability to swap out "infrastructure" elements, such as "Data Access, I/O, and Web Services" (http://jeffreypalermo.com/blog/the-onion-architecture-part-3/).
Jeff says in his post from 2008 that "the industry has modified data access techniques at least every three years".
Does anyone have an example of a reasonably large project where Onion architecture was used and swapping out of key infrastructure elements was subsequently undertaken?
I'm interested to understand:
How common is this scenario, in general?
My instinct tells me that while "data access techniques" may be modified every three years, changes to actual infrastructure for running solutions, which would allow this benefit to be realised, may be a lot less frequent?
What were the conditions were that the solution was operating under originally?
What caused the change in the underlying infrastructure?
Are there lessons to be learned about the practical implications of changing infrastructure in this way, which may allow us to refine original implementations of the Onion architecture?
I'm interested to hear whether there were unexpected changes required beyond just replacing the infrastructure component and implementing the same interface. For example, did the new infrastructure require new arguments to be passed to previously defined methods e.g. SaveOrder(int ID) -> SaveOrder(int ID, bool AllowSiblings, bool SiblingCreated) when moving from a Relational to NoSQL DB model.
Did the implementation of this architecture + rework to migrate to new infrastructure significantly decrease the total effort required, if compared to a traditional, coupled approach?
Do developers find coupled, hard-referenced code easier to write and debug than loosely coupled, indirectly referenced code, but the eventual payoff for infrastructure changes makes this worth it?
Well, IMHO, the primary intent of such architecture style (Hexagoanl, Ports&Adapters, Onion …) is that it allows you to focus on your domain, how you will deliver value instead of focusing first on UI, frameworks or storage issues. It allows you to defer such decisions.
As Jeffrey says, the ability to swap out "infrastructure" elements is a nice side effect of such architecture style. Even if you will not switch from one RDBMS to another every 6 months, it’s quite reassuring knowing that it would be possible doing it without pain, though.
Rather than thinking about changing your storage mechanism on a regular basis or as you said “swapping out of key infrastructure elements”, just think about third parties services that you’d plug to your system. Those are eager to change on a regular basis; you would also switch from one provider to another. This is quite a more common scenario we are used to face with on a more regular basis. In this particular case, the domain behavior won’t change, the interfaces will stay the same, you won’t have to change a single line of code into your core domain layer. Only the implementation made somewhere in your infrastructure layer might have to change. That’s a another noteworthy benefit from that kind of architecture!
Please read this nice Uncle Bob article about Clean Architecture where he explains why the ability to defer critical infrastructure decision is really cool!
--- EDIT ---
Could you provide an example of where you have swapped out a third party service?
We have tons of examples where we switched from one provider to another (from payment providers to live feeds providers or whatever provider). The business stays the same, the domain behaviors are still the same. Changing a provider should not have any kind of impact on your business. You don’t have to change the way your business work, where the value really is, just because you change from one provider to another, it makes no sense. Isolating your domain behaviors in an independent core layer, with no dependencies on any third parties libraries, frameworks or provider services, definitely help you to deal with changes.
I have the feeling that you’re trying to convince yourself whether to go with Onion. You might be on the wrong track only thinking about migrating to new infrastructure related stuff (db, third parties stuff...). Focus on your domain instead. Ask yourself if your domain is complex enough to require such an architecture style. Don’t use a bazooka to kill a fly. As Simon Brown says: "Principles are good, but make sure they’re realistic and don’t have a negative impact"!
If your application is quite small, with no complex business domain, go for classic n-tiers architecture, that’s ok; don’t change things just for the sake of it or just because of any buzzword. But also keep in mind that an isolated core business layer without dependencies, as in Onion architecture, might be very easy to unit test!
Now for your additional questions:
Did the implementation of this architecture + rework to migrate to new infrastructure significantly decrease the total effort required, if compared to a traditional, coupled approach?
It depends! :-) In tightly coupled applications as soon as there’s a new infrastructure element to be migrated, there is little doubt that you’ll surely have to modify code in every layers (including the business layer). But if this application is small, quite straightforward, well organized with a descent test code coverage, this shouldn’t be a big deal. Now, if it’s quite big, with a more complex business domain, it might be a good idea to isolate that layer in a totally separate layer with no dependencies at all, ensuring that infrastructure changes won’t cause any business regression.
Do developers find coupled, hard-referenced code easier to write and debug than loosely coupled, indirectly referenced code, but the eventual payoff for infrastructure changes makes this worth it?
Well, ask your teammates! Are they used to work with IOC? Remember that architecture design and choices must be a team decision. This must be something shared by the whole team.
Situation: The dba is an offsite contractor who keeps the entire DAL code checked out in TFS. It would be nice as the front end developer to be able to add columns, and tweak procs and whatnot, without having to rely on waiting for this dude to respond to your emails to do the work.
Question: What would be a recommended solution/process that would allow for more rapid/agile development, while maintaining data integrity as well as peace love and happiness among the team?
Im getting some good feedback on Programmers HERE
There is no general technical answer to your question (unless you can define a very limited kind of needed access, which can be supplied via an API he provides for you in the DAL, etc.).
Assuming you already tried to talk with him and probably even escalated the issue, there is probably a valid reason for limiting access (security, data model integrity, performance tuning, version control etc.).
Try to understand the reasoning behind his approach, and to better define your actual needs, it is possible that after that you can formulate an improvement to your architecture (such as the aforementioned API) or your development process. Most importantly, talk frankly about your concerns, communication can go a long way, as long as you are willing to understand the other side.
Our client follows SOA principles and have design web services that are very fine grained like createCustomer, deleteCustomer, etc.
I am not sure if fine grained services are desirable as they create transactional related issues. for e.g. if a business requirement is every Customer must have a Address when it's created. So in this case, the presentation component will invoke createCustomer first and then createAddress. The services internally use simple JDBC to update the respective tables in db. As a service is invoked by external component, it has not way of fulfilling transactional requirement here i.e. if createAddress fails, createCustomer operation must be rolledback.
I guess, one of the approach to deal with this is to either design course grained services (that creates a Customer and associated Address in one single JDBC transaction) or
perhaps simple create a reversing service (deleteCustomer) that simply reverses the action of createCustomer.
any suggestions. thanks
The short answer: services should be designed for the convenience of the service client. If the client is told "call this, then cdon't forget to call that" you're making their lives too difficult. There should be a coarse-grained service.
A long answer: Can a Customer reasonably be entered with no Address? So we call
createCustomer( stuff but no address)
and the result is a valid (if maybe not ideal) state for a customer. Later we call
changeCustomerAddress ( customerId, Address)
and now the persisted customer is more useful.
In this scenario the API is just fine. The key point is that the system's integrity does not depend upon the client code "remembering" to do something, in this case to add the address. However, more likely we don't want a customer in the system without an address in which case I see it as the service's responsibility to ensure that this happens, and to give the caller the fewest possibilities of getting it wrong.
I would see a coarse-grained createCompleteCustomer() method as by far the best way to go - this allows the service provider to solve the problem once rather then require every client programmer to implement the logic.
Alternatives:
a). There are web Services specs for Atomic Transactions and major vendors do support these specs. In principle you could actually implement using fine-grained methods and true transactions. Practically, I think you enter a world of complexity when you go down this route.
b). A stateful interface (work, work, commit) as mentioned by #mtreit. Generally speaking statefulness either adds complexity or obstructs scalability. Where does the service hold the intermediate state? If in memeory, then we require affinity to a particular service instance and hence introduce scaling and reliability problems. If in some State or Work-in-progress database then we have significant additional implementation complexity.
Ok, lets start:
Our client follows SOA principles and
have design web services that are very
fine grained like createCustomer,
deleteCustomer, etc.
No, the client has forgotten to reach the SOA principles and put up what most people do - a morass of badly defined interfaces. For SOA principles, the clinent would have gone to a coarser interface (such asfor example the OData meachsnism to update data) or followed the advice of any book on multi tiered architecture written in like the last 25 years. SOA is just another word for what was invented with CORBA and all the mistakes SOA dudes do today where basically well known design stupidities 10 years ago with CORBA. Not that any of the people doing SOA today has ever heard of CORBA.
I am not sure if fine grained services
are desirable as they create
transactional related issues.
Only for users and platforms not supporting web services. Seriously. Naturally you get transactional issues if you - ignore transactional issues in your programming. The trick here is that people further up the food chain did not, just your client decided to ignore common knowledge (again, see my first remark on Corba).
The people designing web services were well aware of transactional issues, which is why web service specification (WS*) contains actually mechanisms for handling transactional integrity by moving commit operations up to the client calling the web service. The particular spec your client and you should read is WS-Atomic.
If you use the current technology to expose your web service (a.k.a. WCF on the MS platform, similar technologies exist in the java world) then you can expose transaction flow information to the client and let the client handle transaction demarcation. This has its own share iof problems - like clients keeping transactions open maliciously - but is still pretty much the only way to handle transactions that do get defined in the client.
As you give no platform and just mention java, I am pointing you to some MS example how that can look:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms752261.aspx
Web services, in general, are a lot more powerfull and a lot more thought out than what most people doing SOA ever think about. Most of the problems they see have been solved a long time ago. But then, SOA is just a buzz word for multi tiered architecture, but most people thinking it is the greatest thing since sliced bread just dont even know what was around 10 years ago.
As your customer I would be a lot more carefull about the performance side. Fine grained non-semantic web services like he defines are a performance hog for non-casual use because the amount of times you cross the network to ask / update small small small small stuff makes the network latency kill you. Creating an order for like 10 goods can easily take 30-40 network calls in this scenario which will really possibly take a lot of time. SOA preaches, ever since the beginning (if you ignore the ramblings of those who dont know history) to NOT use fine grained calls but to go for a coarse grained exchange of documents and / or a semantical approach, much like the OData system.
If transactionality is required, a coarser-grained single operation that can implement transaction-semantics on the server is definitely going to be much simpler to implement.
That said, certainly it is possible to construct some scheme where the target of the operations is not committed until all of the necessary fine-grained operations have succeeded. For instance, have a Commit operation that checks some flag associated with the object on the server; the flag is not set until all of the necessary steps in the transaction have completed, and Commit fails if the flag is not set.
Of course, if having light-weight, fine grained operations is an important design requirement, perhaps the need to have transactionality should be re-thought.
My project is converting a legacy fat-client desktop application into the web. The database is not changing as a result. Consequently, we are being forced to call external web services to access data in our own database. Couple this with the fact that some parts of our application are allowed to access the database directly through DAOs (a practice that is much faster and easier). The functionality we're supposed to call web services for are what has been deemed necessary for downstream, dependent systems.
Is this really how SOA is supposed to work? Admittedly, this is my first foray into the SOA world, but I have to think this is the complete wrong way to go about this.
I agree that it's the wrong approach. Calling your own database via a webservice should raise red flags in a design review, and a simple DAO is the way to go (KISS principle).
Now, if it's data that truly needs to be shared across your company (accounts, billing, etc) THEN it's time to consider a more heavy-duty solution such as SOAP or REST. But your team could still access it directly, which would be faster.
My team had the same thing happen with a web service that we wanted to call in batch mode. Rather than call our own SOAP endpoint, we instead set it up to call a POJO (plain old java object) interface. There's no XML transformation or extra network hop through an SOA appliance.
It's overkill to put an XML interface between MVC layers when your team owns the whole application. It may not be traditional SOA... but IMO it's traditional common sense. ;)
I've seen people try to jam SOA at too low a level and this may be such a case. I would certainly not equate DAO and SOA at the same level.
I agree with #ewernli
What is SOA "in plain english"?
IMHO, SOA makes sense only at the enterprise-level, and means nothing for a single application.
If I'm reading into your question correctly, your web services are for C/R/U/D data into the database. If so, providing C/R/U/D services directly to the database and its tables are likely too low level to be SOA services.
I'd look for services at a higher level and try to determine whether they are interesting at to the enterprise. If so, those are your services. I'd also ask myself whether my former desktop app is providing services (i.e. should you be looking to make your new app an SOA service itself rather than trying to force an SOA architecture into the desktop app at a low level.
Consequently, we are being forced to
call external web services to access
data in our own database.
Man, that gotta hurt. As far as services in SOA go,
a service is a repeatable logical manifestation of a business task - that means you are not implementing SOA if you are not 'service enabling' business processes. If you are putting some web services to select data out of your data base, all you got is a bunch of webservices, which would slowdown your applications which could have been faster by conventional data access patterns (like DAO)
When you equate SOA with Web services there is a risk of replacing existing APIs with Web services without proper architecture. This will result in identifying many services that are not business aligned.
Also, service orientation is a way of integrating a business as a group of linked services - so ask yourself is the organization making use of these atomic services to achieve further benefits?
Do a google search for SOA anti-patterns and you will find what are the different ways to end up with a pile of web-services instead of SOA.
SOA... SOA... is the bane of my existence, for just this reason. What, or what not, constitutes SOA? I support SOA products in my day job, and some people get it, some don't. SOA.. SOA is about wrapping discrete business services in XML. ZIP+4 validation services. Payment gateways. B2B messaging.
SOA CAN be used to decouple desktop apps from backend databases. Sometimes it doesn't make sense, sometimes it does. What almost NEVER makes sense is low-latency high-query-count logic. If you ever have to use an application in France directly connected to a database in California, you'll get what I mean. SOA pretty much forces you to then smartly about how you model and return your data (look into SDO - Service Data Objects). The devil's in the details though. Marshalling data to/from XML can be costly.
Good SOA design is all about separation of behavior and data.
I repeat behavior and data need to be separate or else you will have lots or problems whether its CORBA/SOAP/REST/XMLRPC or even plain old in-the-same-JVM-method calls.
Lots of people will talk about service end points, message handling, and contracts making SOA one of the more soporific areas of computing when its surprisingly not complicated.
If you are doing Java its really easy. Make POJOs for your domain objects with no weird state behavior and no weird collaborators and then make Service classes with the behavior. More often then not you can just use your DAO as the service (I mean you should have a thin layer over the DAO but if you don't need one....).
OOP lovers will disagree of this separation of data and behavior but this design pattern scales extremely well and is infact what most functional programming languages like Erlang do.
That being said if you are making a video game or something very state based then this design philosophy is a bad idea. BTW SOA is about as vacuous as the term enterprise.
Which part do you think is wrong? The part that you have to hit the web service, or the part you are hitting the database directly?
SOA is more of an API design guideline, not a development methodology. It's not an easy thing to implement, but the reward of reusability is often worth it.
See Service-Oriented Architecture expands the vision of Web services or any technical book on SOA. Simply wrapping function calls with web call does not make it a Service Oriented Architecture. The idea of the SOA is to make reusable services, and then you make higher level services (like website) by compositing or orchestrating underlying low-level services. At the very low level, you should focus on things like statelessness, loose coupling, and granularity. Modern frameworks like Microsoft's WCF supports wiring protocols like SOAP, REST, and faster binary side by side.
If your application is designed to run over the Internet, you should be mindful of the network latency issues. In a traditional client-server application that is deployed on a LAN, because the latency is sub 10 msec, you could hit the database every time you need the data without interrupting the user experience. However, on the Internet, it is not uncommon to have 200 msec latency if you go across proxies or oceans. If you hit the database 100 times, and that will add up to 20 seconds of pause. In SOA, you would try to pack the whole thing into a single document, and you exchange the document back and forth, similar to the way tax is filed using Form 1040 if you live in the US.
You may say that the latency issue is irrelevant because the web service is only consumed by your web application layer. But you could hit the web service from the browser using AJAX reload the data, which should give the user shorter response time.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 9 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Can someone explain in plain english what is SOA all about? I hear SOA here, SOA there but I cannot understand exacly what it is and what is used for. Was it some simple concept and later evolved into something huge or what?
All documents, including wiki are a bit abstract or maybe I'm an idiot and don't get it. Is there an idiot's guide on this?
What exactly is there behind these three letters?
SOA is a new badge for some very old ideas:
Divide your code into reusable modules.
Encapsulate in a module any design decision that is likely to change.
Design your modules in such a way that they can be combined in different useful ways (sometimes called a "family" or "product line").
These are all bedrock software-development principles, many of them first articulated by David Parnas.
What's new in SOA is
You're doing it on a network.
Modules are communicating by sending messages to each other over the network, rather than by more tradtional programming-language mechanisms like procedure calls. In particular, in a service-oriented architecture the parts generally don't share mutable state (global variables in a traditional program). Or if they do share state, that state is carefully locked up in a database which is itself an agent and which can easily manage multiple concurrent clients.
You might find this article (What is SOA? - SOA and Web Services Explained ) helpful.
A little teaser:
SOA is a style of architecting applications in such a way that they are composed of discrete software agents that have simple, well defined interfaces and are orchestrated through a loose coupling to perform a required function.
There are 2 roles in SOA- a service provider and a service consumer. A software agent may play both roles. SOA is not an entirely new concept – however, this article mainly focuses on SOA as implemented with web services.
I see many answers explaining a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) using even more advanced words and technical terms. I'd like to give a shot at explaining it for the layman, using an analogy in plain english.
But first a description of a SOA
SOA could be described in three layers as seen in the picture below. On one side we have the Provider and on the other side we have the Consumer, separated by a Bridge where the two sides communicate.
The consumer uses a number of Applications necessary for it's business and the provider uses Components that provide these applications with information. They communicate through a set of Services using a common architecture.
The analogy
Imagine a house on the country side, that in many ways is part of a larger community, like a city or town. The city has it's own complex systems for providing water and electricity, handling sanitation, providing transportation and other utilities. The House is the consumer in this model, the City (or community) is the provider and the pipes, sewers, powerlines, optical fibers etc. is the Infrastructure in which they communicate.
This model could loosely be compared to a SOA. The people in the house uses a number of different "applications" like radiators, computers, toilets, lamps, underfloor heating, bathtubs etc. These applications don't care how the city generates the water, creates the electricity or handles the waste as long as it works. The components of the city are generators, water pumps and sanitation areas. It provides the house with all these needs but it's up to the house to use it in what ever way it sees fit.
I hope this gave at least someone a better picture of a SOA.
Let's assume you have four cooks. In SOA, you assume they hate each other, so you strive to let them have to talk to each other as little as possible.
How do you do that? Well, you will first define the roles and interface -- cook 1 will make salad, cook 2 will make soup, cook 3 will make the steak, etc.. Then you will place the dishes well organised on the table (so these are the interfaces) and say, "Everybody please place your creation into your assigned dishes. Don't care about anybody else.".
This way, the four cooks have to talk to each other as little as possible, which is very good in software development -- not necessarily because they hate each other, but for other reasons like physical location, efficiency in making decisions etc.
It also means you can recombine the dishes (services) as you like. For example, you might just use the dessert to service a cafe, or just take the soup and combine it with a bread you bought from another company to provide a cheaper menu, or let other restaurants use your salads to combine with their dishes, etc.
One of the most successful implementation of SOA was at Amazon. Because of their design, they could re-package their whole infrastructure and sell it as Amazon Web Service.
*This is only one aspect of SOA.
SOA is an architectural style but also a vision on how heterogeneous application should be developped and integrated. The main purpose of SOA is to shift away from monolithic applications and have instead a set of reusable services that can be composed to build applications.
IMHO, SOA makes sense only at the enterprise-level, and means nothing for a single application.
In many enterprise, each department had its own set of enterprise applications which implied
Similar feature were implemented several times
Data (e.g. customer or employee data) need to be shared between
several applications
Applications were department-centric.
With SOA, the idea is to have reusable services be made available enterprise-wide, so that application can be built and composed out of them. The promise of SOA are
No need to reimplement similar features over and over (e.g.
provide a customer or employee service)
Facilitates integration of applications together and the access
to common data or features
Enterprise-centric development
effort.
The SOA vision requires an technological shift as well as an organizational shift. Whereas it solves some problem, it also introduces other, for instance security is much harder with SOA that with monolithic application. Therefore SOA is subject to discussion on whether it works or not.
This is the 1000ft view of SOA. It however doesn't stop here. There are other concepts complementing SOA such as business process orchestration (BPM), enterprise service bus (ESB), complex event processing (CEP), etc. They all tackle the problem of IT/business alignement, that is, how to have the IT be able to support the business effectively.
SOA is acronym for Service Oriented Architecture.
SOA is designing and writing software applications in such a way
that distinct software modules can be
integrated seamlessly with high degree
of re-usability.
Most of the people
restrict SOA as writing client/server
software-web-services. But it is too
small context of SOA. SOA is much
larger than that and over the past few
years web-services have been primary
medium of communcation which is
probably the reason why people think
of SOA as web-services in general
restricting the boundaries and meaning
of SOA.
You can think of writing a database-access module which is so independent that it can work on its own without any dependencies. This module can expose classes which can be used by any host-software that needs database access. There's no start-up configuration in host-application. Whatever is needed or required is communicated through classes exposes by database-access module. We can call these classes as services and consider the module as service-enabled.
Practicing SOA gives high degree of
re-usability by enforcing DRY [Don't
repeat your self] which results into
highly maintainable software.
Maintainability is the first thing any
software architecture thinks of - SOA
gives you that.
As far as I understand, the basic concept there is that you create small "services" that provide something useful to other systems and avoid building large systems that tend to do everything inside the system.
So you define a protocol which you will use for interaction (say, it might be SOAP web services) and let your "system-that-does-some-business-work" to interact with the small services to achieve your "big goal".
I would suggest you read articles by Thomas Erl and Roger Sessions, this will give you a firm handle on what SOA is all about. These are also good resources, look at the SOA explained for your boss one for a layman explanation
Building a SOA
SOA Design Pattern
Achieving integrity in a SOA
Why your SOA should be like a VW Beetle
SOA explained for your boss
WCF Service Performance
what tends to happen in large organizations is that over time everything is either monolithic or disparate systems everywhere or a little of both. Someone eventually comes in and says we've got a mess. Now, you want to re-design (money to someone) everything to be oriented in a sort of monotlithic depends on who you pay paradigm but at the same time be able to add pieces and parts independently of the master/monolith.
So you buy Oracle's SOA and Oracle becomes the boss of all your parts. All the other players coming in have to work with SOA via a service (web service or whatever it has.) The Oracle monolith takes care of everything (monolith is not meant derogatory). Oh yeah, you got ASP.NET MVC on the front or something else.
main thing is moving things in and out of they system without impact and keeping the vendor Oracle SOA, Microsoft WCF, as the brains of it all. everything's all oop/ood like, fluid, things moving in and out with little to no impact, even human services, not just computers.
To me it just means a bunch of web services (or whatever we call them in the future) with a good front end. And if you own the database just hit the database and stop worrying about buzzwords. it's okay.
Only one suggestion:-
Read SOA Concepts, Technology and Design by Thomas Erl.
It has very beautifully given the details about SOA in plain English and with case studies.
Well You see.. SOA stands for Service Oriented Architecture.... In simplest words, you write a piece of code that is very generic i.e. it does some thing that can be used in a lot of applications ... may be something like a address book or may be a calculator. and you launch this code on the IIS. So you provide a service through your code. So you are a service provider. Now someone wants to use a similar code then he does not have to write the code again. He simply uses your code maybe through a web service. Hence he becomes a service consumer. Hence making a program using such services is called SOA. And the loose coupling is there as the service provider and consumer may be interacting even if they are using diff programming languages.
Hope you understand.
from ittoolbox blogs.
The following outlines the similarities and differences to past design techniques:
• SOA versus Structured Programming
o Similarities: Most similar to subroutine calls where parameters are passed and the operation of the function is abstracted from the caller - e.g. CICS link and execute and the COBOL CALL reserved word. Copybooks are used to define data structure which is typically defined as an XML schema for services.
o Differences: SOA is loosely coupled implying changes to a service have less impact to the consumer (the "calling" program) and services are interoperable across languages and platforms.
• SOA versus OOA/OOD
o Similarities: Encapsulation, Abstraction and Defined Interfaces
o Differences: SOA is loosely coupled with no class hierarchy or inheritance, Low-level abstractions - class level versus business service
• SOA versus legacy Component Based Development (CBD) - e.g. CORBA, DCOM, EJB
o Similarities: Reuse through assembling components, Interfaces, Remote calls
o Differences: Wide adoption of standards, XML Schemas vs. Marshaled Objects, Service Orchestration, Designing for reuse is easier, services are business focused vs. IT focused, business services are course grained (broad in scope)
• SOA (for integration) versus Enterprise Application Integration (EAI)
o Similarities: Best practices (well defined interfaces, standardized schemas, event driven architecture), reusable interfaces, common schemas
o Differences: Standards, adoption, and improved tools
Reading the responses above, it sounds to me that SOA is what developers (good ones at least) have been doing from day one.
It could also stand for "Struct of Arrays" (as opposed to "Array of Structs") which is a common topic in parallel (especially SIMD) programming, but I'm guessing that's not what you mean here!
SOA is a buzzword that was invented by technology vendors to help sell their Enterprise Service Bus related technologies. The idea is that you make your little island applications in the enterprise (eg: accounting system, stock control system, etc) all expose services, so that they can be orchestrated flexibly into 'applications', or rather become parts of aggregate enterprise scoped business logic.
Basically a load of old bollocks that nearly never works, because it misses the point that the reasons why technology is the way it is in an organisation is down to culture, evolution, history of the firm, and the lock in is so high that any attempt to restructure the technology is bound to fail.
Have a listen to this week's edition of the Floss Weekly podcast, which covers SOA. The descriptions are pretty high level and don't delve into too many technical details (although more concrete and recognizable examples of SOA projects would have been helpful.
A traditional application architecture is:
A user interface
Undefined stuff (implementation) that's encapsulated/hidden behind the user interface
If you want to access the data programmatically, you might need to resort to screen-scraping.
SOA seems to me to be an architecture which focus on exposing machine-readable data and/or APIs, instead of on exposing UIs.
SOA or Service-Oriented Architecture is a software architecture pattern in which applications or systems are constructed from underlying (and usually distributed) software services that conform to a specific set of characteristics, namely:
Interface, Policy and Contract based
Location transparency
Autonomous
Abstract
Reusable
Composable
Stateless
Discoverable
Extensible
Loosely coupled
The primary goal of SOA is sofware development agility, i.e. the ability to respond the change easily, and cheaply, thus allowing businesses to rapidly respond to changing markets.
Services are typically (but by no means exclusively) implemented as web services, i.e. they operate over the ubiquitous web HTTP protocol, and are implemented either using XML-based SOAP or the lightweight (and more popular) REST paradigm.
Depends on who you are!
If you're an business owner, SOA is a solution to increase your incomes and business agility. If you're an entreprise architect, SOA is a way to draw nice and clean piece of software on a blank canvas. If you're an architect SOA is the solution to design loosely coupled services over an integration platform, to just plug services into outlets. If you're a developper SOA is a programming paradigm where a service is in the center of the design and the code.
You should read 100-SOA-Questions [pdf]
Cheers
Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) is a software architectural style that builds applications as a collection of pluggable parts, each of which can be reused by other applications.