Dave on Orchestration

Dave Linthicum is blogging about orchestration and gets it mostly right.   

The blog entry does a  decent job of describing orchestration at a high level - if you're unfamiliar with orchestration the blog entry is worth a read.   The following, however, made me recoil a bit (emphasis is mine):

Orchestrations may span a few internal systems, systems between organizations, or both. Moreover, orchestrations are long-running, multi-step transactions, almost always controlled by one business party, and are loosely coupled and asynchronous in nature.

Dave's definition confuses orchestration with choreography.      Put more simply. orchestrations are intra-organization while choreographies are inter-organization.   Put even more simply, one organization does not orchestrate another.   

I wrote more about this in older blog entries here and here.

Comments (2)
  1. Dave Linthicum is blogging about orchestration and gets it mostly right. The blog entry does a decent

  2. Appu says:

    Well, as per my understanding orchestration is a more centralized way of managing the interaction of services. In this case, services are not expected to know which other service to contact for a particular request. All such intelligence is centralized in the orchestration (BPEL etc) framework. I would roughly equate this to a musical orchestra where the musicians "play to the tune" of the conductor.

    Choreography is more about individual services having better knowledge about interaction with other systems. Intra-organizational (B2B) architectures are a good example. They are typically coarse-grained services with in-built intelligence to "dance according to the tune" of the overall business process. Probably a ballet is a fair example where each participant is expected to know his/her part clearly.

Comments are closed.

Skip to main content