Yup! You got it. Yes, one of the things that the "market" will have to
determine is how much of a complete product do they want from vendors
and how much do they want to put together on their own. So far, not
enough is known (or experienced) about SOA to make a good
determination, but you did get it right this time, so thanks!
Best,
Ron
Radovan Janecek wrote:
Ron,
I hope I understand your point. The question is where is the boundary
between 'real product' and 'mish-mash'. In the context of SOA
infrastructure discussion you might want see (an ad hoc incomplete
list):
1) service runtime
2) security (user management, authentication, authorization, signature
or encryption services, trust, federation, firewalls,...)
3) routing (including bpel like routing)
4) reliability
5) management (monitoring, auditing, tools, ...)
6) reporting
7) distributed configuration
8) runtime policy framework
9) _huge_ amount of bridges to legacy world
10) development tools and office tools integration
11) registry (discovery, publishing, taxonomies)
12) repository (interfaces, policies, contracts, etc.)
Now, what the 'SOA product' should offer and when it starts to be
mish-mash? I think we both agree it's not about having everything from
1 to 12 (and more). So if a vendor X itself provides 1, 8, 10 because
it does it very well and then it integrates with vendor Y that does the
best in 2 and 11 - is it a mish-mash or product? Where is the line?
Anyway, no vendor is big or good enough to provide complete SOA
solution. This should not be seen as a problem. This always has been
the case despite all the promises. But now, SOA allows customers to
choose the best of breed security, registry, tools, management - which
is very good.
As Anne said, the press communication can be confusing (e.g. the Oracle
vs IBM comparison). But it seems we are on the same page now.
Best,
Radovan
On 10/21/05, Ron Schmelzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi Radovan --
You still got it wrong - at least you got it wrong as to what Jason and
I meant in our comments. We definitely are not saying to get it all
from one vendor. What we are saying is that if you DO buy a product
from a vendor, at the very least it should be a real product - not a
mish-mash of random stuff. So, we are not saying buy an ESB ./ Service
Network etc. from one vendor as the only solution. What we are saying
is that if you are going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a
product, it better be a product!
Does that clarify things? In the future, we'd be happy to chat
directly, since getting it wrong doesn't really do a service to either
our original comments or your blog commentary... If you're not clear
about what we meant in our comments, we're happy to clarify.
Ron
Radovan Janecek wrote:
Ron,
thanks for your answer. I cannot comment Oracle's strategy as I don't
know enough. My general 2 cents are here:
http://radovanjanecek.net/blog/archives/000289.html
Best,
Radovan
On 10/20/05, Ron Schmelzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
To
answer your question on the blog, the opinion is not that companies
shouldn't approach SOA as a frankestein of multiple products (in fact,
this is actually a BEST practice). Jason and I believe that Oracle's
approach itself is a Frankstein. What this means is that as a company,
the company has no single strategy with SOA. Rather than come up with
one strategy, they are cobbling together many disparate and unrelated
technologies in hopes that it is consistent.
For customer to build their own Frankenstein is one thing (and actually
a good thing)
For companies who have SOA products to build a Frankenstein and then
give it to their customers pretending that it's a single product is
another thing (and a bad thing).
I hope this clarifies our comments.
Ron
Radovan Janecek wrote:
Robin, I agree with you and I'm very surprised by that
article. My comment is on my blog:
http://radovanjanecek.net/blog/archives/000287.html
Best,
Radovan
On 10/19/05, Robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Jason
Bloomberg has been telling to SD Times that Oracle is taking the
Frankenstein approach to SOA. Check the article here
http://www.sdtimes.com/article/story-20051015-09.html
I am surprized to see no reaction to this statement. I believe every
architect busy integrating packages or best-of-breed products is taking
the Frankenstein approach.
I think IBM and BEA have also a long track of such integrations.
I am also convinced that SOA role is to make the Frankenstein Approach
possible or at least less expensive at the end of the day.
What do you think?
Robin
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO!
GROUPS LINKS
--
Radovan Janecek
http://radovanjanecek.net/blog
--
_____________________________________________________________
Ronald Schmelzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Analyst
ZapThink LLC
Direct: 781-577-2779 / Main: 781-207-0203
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO!
GROUPS LINKS
--
Radovan Janecek
http://radovanjanecek.net/blog
--
_____________________________________________________________
Ronald Schmelzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Analyst
ZapThink LLC
Direct: 781-577-2779 / Main: 781-207-0203
--
Radovan Janecek
http://radovanjanecek.net/blog
--
_____________________________________________________________
Ronald Schmelzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Analyst
ZapThink LLC
Direct: 781-577-2779 / Main: 781-207-0203
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
