RE: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Apache & Tuscany

[Gautham Kasinath]

See below:   Gautham Kasinath Masters Student School of Computing and Information Science Edith Cowan University Mt. Lawley Campus Perth   IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL Screen name: gkasinath42 Mobile: 0433 904 011 Home phone: 61 8 9444 8154 Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/gkasinath The world is what it is, and we are what we are. - Maria Puzo (Godfather) -----Original Message----- From: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com [mailto:service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gregg Wonderly Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 1:45 AM To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Apache & Tuscany   William Henry wrote: > BTW this is also an area that needs to be addressed: corporations > should NOT assume that they ought to service enable everything. And > how should they evaluate this? That is the grand question!  Is service enabling everything a consideration, a step in the design process, a mantra from on high, or a necessity of good practice?                 - IMHO, This is truly an interesting and non trivial question. For instance, as rightly mentioned below, moving towards SOA has its own costs, for migration, maintenance and risk management/mitigation. In my opinion, an enterprise must evaluate the gains it can fore-see by moving towards SOA. It is also helpful, for such an enterprise to closely watch or examine gains that other businesses (in the same domain) by moving to SOA. But SOA, is by no degree, IMHO, a *mantra*. Are you using a software development platform where service enabling is a cost concern or a performance concern for non-remote users?  If service enabling is a considerable concern in design, development and deployment, then perhaps you are not using an effective software platform for SOA,                 - It could also mean that the business processes chosen to migrate and use SOA based architecture wasn’t really meant for it. There are many business processes/workflows that may not make sense in a SOA or SCA. Sometimes things *have* to be hard wired.                or you don't have effective software design practices in place related to your platform of choice.                 - IMO, true. The importance of SOA is that it enables people to use services in ways that you haven't already constructed.                  - Well, I guess I lost you on this, can you elaborate? Without that fabric in place, you will always be rearchitecting your applications to turn them into services.  It's the small users that will probably experience the most gain, not the large scale users that you plan for... Gregg Wonderly I am sure you have come across this article in CNET News: http://news.com.com/Salesforce+outage+angers+customers/2100-1012_3-6004625.html?tag=nefd.top From what I remember (from working on) Salesforce provided e-CRM using Web Services. Now, when such a service goes down, or suddenly starts being un-reliable, what does a company/business that leverages on the service do? Who is to take the blame and how is one to recover losses? Further, isn’t customer data safest in the hands of the business that collects it, rather than a third party (un-reliable) service provider? Cheers G. SPONSORED LINKS Service-oriented architecture Computer monitoring software Computer and internet software Free computer monitoring software YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.