I didn't really take it that way - although the illustration does show legacy technologies being displaced, which I think is incorrect. Ajax isn't going to replace CICS anytime soon for example.
The quotes in the article were about the changing role of developers, more toward assembling components than creating completely new applications, and in that context I think the bricklayer analogy is correct. I agree SOA is not a centralized architecture though... --- John Evdemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Its unfortunate that the bricklayer analogy is > focused on the front-end user > experience. This is, imho, the least interesting > part of an architecture. > I think one of the biggest challenges is how to > expose our services and > capabilities to the broadest possible set of > consumers, not how the > consumers will use them. > > I also found the table in the article somewhat > misleading. SOA is not just > SOAP on servers with a slow rate of change - its > also not a centralized > architecture (at least not in my experiences > anyway). > > Thanks for scanning and sharing Todd! > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: > [email protected] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > > Behalf Of Eric Newcomer > > Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 8:36 AM > > To: > [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] > eWeek > > Comparison of SOA and Web 2.0 > > > > Todd - thanks very much. > > > > The text of the article seems ok, although perhaps > a > > bit disjointed. > > > > I think the major point is on target though - > about > > developers doing more and more component assembly > and > > less development of code from scratch. > > > > We see a lot of analogies to try to explain what's > > happening in the software industry as it continues > to > > mature, and the bricklayer analogy isn't bad since > it > > implies the use of standard size bricks to improve > > productivity and lower cost (compared to the > trouble > > of constructing those old stone walls we see a lot > of > > in New England for example). > > > > Eric > > > > --- Todd Biske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I had to split it into two PDFs, since there > were > > > some ads in the > > > middle. > > > > > > http://www.biske.com/eWeek021306.pdf > > > http://www.biske.com/eWeek021306.p2.pdf > > > > > > -tb > > > > > > On Feb 17, 2006, at 3:57 PM, JP Morgenthal > wrote: > > > > > > > eWeek has not posted this article online. > Does > > > anyone have the > > > > ability to > > > > scan and send to the rest of the group? I may > be > > > able to, but not > > > > until > > > > next week. > > > > > > > > JP > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Behalf > > > > Of Eric > > > > Newcomer > > > > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:42 PM > > > > To: > > > [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] > > > eWeek Comparison of > > > > SOA and > > > > Web 2.0 > > > > > > > > I haven't seen the article either, although I > > > believe this is the > > > > one I was > > > > interviewed for. If so, I hope my > contribution > > > seemed ok ;-) > > > > > > > > Based on the comments I've seen here it sure > seems > > > like someone has > > > > mixed up > > > > architecture and technology. > > > > I also am with Anne about this what the heck > is > > > Web 2.0 stuff - I > > > > don't > > > > like the name but I suppose we are stuck with > > > it... > > > > > > > > What I hope came through though is the need to > > > connect the Web 2.0 > > > > technologies to enterprise data sources using > Web > > > services. > > > > > > > > I have blogged a bit about this, but mostly > within > > > the overall > > > > context of > > > > the need to standardize the software industry. > > > The Web 2.0 stuff > > > > is a great > > > > illustration of the benefits of > standardization, > > > and to me it's a good > > > > illustration of the kind of thing the industry > > > needs to achive in > > > > enterprise > > > > software. > > > > > > > > The importance of standardization to > productivity: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.iona.com/blogs/newcomer/archives/000255.html > > > > > > > > Solution through standardization: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.iona.com/blogs/newcomer/archives/000258.html > > > > > > > > How it all ties into Web 2.0: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.iona.com/blogs/newcomer/archives/000259.html > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Todd Biske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> There's been a rash of articles on the Web > 2.0 > > > and SOA due to John > > > >> deVaDoss' (Microsoft) recent comments. > While I > > > just went to the > > > >> eWeek site and couldn't find the article, I > know > > > I saw that table > > > >> that > > > >> you mentioned and I shook my head as well. > If I > > > recall correctly, > > > >> the > > > >> article kept flip-flopping on whether SOA and > Web > > > 2.0 were > > > >> complementary or not, and that table didn't > help > > > at all. > > > >> > > > >> It's a shame that the waters were muddied by > that > > > article, because I > > > >> actually think some of the discussion going > on > > > around SOA and Web 2.0 > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
