A service architecture is most comparable in scope to a traditional:

Question

Options

• Acomponent architecture
• Bintegration architecture
• Capplication architecture
• DNone of the above.

• A
  88% (22)
• B
  4% (1)
• D
  8% (2)

Explanation

Service architecture sits at the same conceptual granularity as component architecture (A) - both define the internal structure, responsibilities, and boundaries of a discrete, self-contained unit of functionality, whether called a "service" or a "component." Option B (integration architecture) is wrong because that addresses how multiple systems or applications communicate and interoperate, which is a broader, cross-system concern. Option C (application architecture) is also too broad - it governs the overall structure of an entire application (layers, patterns, frameworks), whereas service architecture scopes down to a single service's internals.

Memory tip: Think of a service as just a "component with a network address" - the architectural thinking you apply to one maps directly to the other. If you remember that services and components share the same unit of encapsulation, you'll always pick A over the broader integration/application options.

No community discussion yet for this question.