--- In [email protected], Todd Biske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's nothing much I can say about Sun. On the Microsoft side, > they've published their position paper regarding ESBs in the past. > To me, the whole message seems consistent with an predisposition to > Microsoft-everywhere. Clearly, if you have the same platform > everywhere, there's no need for an ESB. That position is also > consistent with a smart nodes, dumb network approach. The same thing > would hold true if everything was WebSphere or Oracle. Microsoft's > probably the only company that can actually expect to have an all > Windows environment, however.
"Up to a point, Lord Copper." At large enterprise level I would have thought that there were appreciably more mixed sites (what old IBM mainframers used to term "contaminated sites") than pure MS sites. BizTalk is designed for heterogeneous integration, I understand. I know for a fact that in certain countries Microsoft employees work directly on customers' integration projects (presumably using BizTalk)in heterogeneous environments. Gervas > > Microsoft is at least very consistent with its message. I have no > issues with service-oriented computing. After all, Microsoft is > selling the computing servers and development tools behind the > services, not the services themselves. We all know you can't buy an > SOA. If anything, we'd all be better off if SOA became more of a > business trend than a technology trend. Service oriented computing > would be what IT does in support of the business SOA. > > -tb > > On Mar 6, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > > > I'll provide a slightly different perspective. > > > > On Microsoft: > > Microsoft defines its own path and doesn't like to follow the > > crowd. Microsoft views SOA as too grandiose, and it is instead > > focusing on more practical, pragmatic, and tactical issues rather > > than life-style changing, strategic initiatives like SOA. > > > > The Microsoft Servers and Tools group (responsible for Windows > > Server, Windows Server System, .NET, and Visual Studio) has > > repeated told me that they aren't comfortable with service-oriented > > "architecture". Instead they are focusing on service-oriented > > "computing". The buzz word for their marketing message is > > "Connected Systems", not SOA. > > > > This is the group that focuses on the enterprise software market: a > > superplatform that competes with the likes of WebSphere, WebLogic, > > and Oracle Fusion. I agree with Dan that this group does not view > > an ESB as an end game opportunity. In fact, this group dismisses an > > ESB as, at best, a temporarily marginally useful middleware product > > that fills in a few gaps while the WS-* specs are being finalized, > > but will soon become irrelevant. I seriously doubt that this group > > will ever produce an ESB. It already has BizTalk, and it's about to > > release Windows Communication Foundation (WCF, aka "Indigo"). > > > > Meanwhile, Microsoft is focusing on making it easier to build new > > apps and to integrate old ones. .NET and WinFX (aka "Indigo", > > "Avalon", and Windows Workflow Foundation) are excellent frameworks > > for rapidly building applications and making applications > > communicate. Reusable services, business alignment, and other > > terminology often associated with SOA are not part of Microsoft's > > Connected Systems vocabulary. > > > > The more strategic part of Microsoft's Connected Systems message > > has to do with designing systems for operations -- the Dynamic > > Systems Initiative (DSI) and System Definition Model (SDM) stuff. > > > > Other groups within Microsoft are focused on productivity > > applications (Office) and the consumer market. As Dan said, these > > groups are very interested in the SaaS business model, as evidenced > > by the Office Live and Windows Live initiatives. But these efforts > > are orthogonal to the superplatform group efforts. > > > > On Sun: > > Dan nailed it. Sun doesn't know how to market or sell software, and > > it's not willing to invest in retraining the sales force. Sun is a > > hardware company. And the only software that it can possibly sell > > is software that's a proprietary solution or packaged with hardware. > > > > Consider this: Sun acquired SeeBeyond in an effort to get in on the > > SOA opportunity. How completely typical that they couldn't > > comprehend the difference between a proprietary integration > > technology and standards-based approach to SOA. > > > > Pitiful. > > > > Sun has developed one product that is reasonable well targeted at > > SOA -- it's new registry/repository system. Although this product > > isn't sold separately. It's only supplied as part of the Sun Java > > Enterprise System. > > > > Anne > > > > On 3/6/06, Gervas Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Daniel, > > > > What your write about MS and their SaaS plans fits in with statements > > I have read. Even so, not everyone will leap unhesitatingly at this > > reinvention of the computer bureau (can you imagine GCHQ rushing into > > this, to give an extreme example?), and that means that large > > organisations now and later are going to demand to know more about > > what they offer on the SOA front. > > > > As regards Sun, I could not possibly expand upon what you have stated > > as I have not had anything like the extent of your direct contact with > > them (Team, Dan is one of the few people on this Group whom I know, > > although it is a couple of years since we viewed each other's ugly > > mug). I did once have a drink with the great Scott McNealy and I > > found him charming and tolerant (he needed to be the latter at that > > stage of the evening). We did not discuss SOA as this was in 1992. > > No, before anyone asks, I have not had the honour of meeting Gregg. > > > > However it would be very interesting to hear from some Solar members > > of this Group how Sun's strategy will take advantage of their > > interesting software assets. > > > > gsd > > > > --- In [email protected], "creswell_dan" > > <dan@> wrote: > > > > > > On MS's technology fit to SOA: > > > > > > The problem with SOA is that everyone and his dog has what they deem > > > an SOA product. Interestingly, in most cases, the product they > > offer > > > is very similar to what they were offering prior to the "rise" of > > SOA. > > > > > > MS's approach seems to be much more in the vein of assumptions that > > > the SalesForce.com model is one that most people will adopt. I > > think > > > they are working at a story there but that's all about external > > facing > > > services. I've seen less about internal facing (i.e. behind the > > > firewall) services. I suspect that MS would say the technology is > > > suitable for both kinds of service but I sense that their > > emphasis is > > > being directed by their expectation of where the big bucks will > > be made. > > > > > > And if MS are being coy as you put it, I think that's because > > they see > > > the end game being not ESB or SOA itself but the external service's > > > market as exhibited by SalesForce.com and so they're trying to leap > > > over a couple of intermediary steps thus gaining a lead. They'll > > > backfill to ESB's etc if they need to but they are after a much more > > > valuable beachhead. > > > > > > On Sun and their software: > > > > > > I think it's horrifyingly simple - Sun still don't see any value in > > > software other than as a means for getting you to buy their > > > hardware/OS. Schwarz has recently been making overtures to HP about > > > merging stuff with Solaris 10. That could definitely be interpreted > > > as "HP and Sun are getting commoditized out of the market, we > > need to > > > be bigger, let's join forces and customer bases". Smells like > > > consolidation to me. > > > > > > So why are Sun coy? They're not - they're naive/inept - they don't > > > even know they have software that plays in the area of SOA! Being > > > specific, there are various engineers who do know that but the sales > > > side of the organization can't see it, and can't guarentee to sell > > > boxes with it ignoring the fact that they could sell lots of > > software > > > boxes. Note also that all indications I have suggest that most > > of the > > > engineers don't get it either - they still inhabit a three-tier or > > > client-server world and can't/won't grok services and are still > > > building much of their software to function in that old world. > > > > > > Two cents from a techie, > > > > > > Dan. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Gervas > > > Douglas" < gervas.douglas@> wrote: > > > > > > > > We read quite a lot in this Group about Java and other non-MS > > > > technologies. And this depite Sun not being over-aggressive about > > > > marketing software, and doing even less for some of its Orphan > > Java > > > > technologies (how often do they bother to mention Jini, RIO, Jxta > > > etc.??). > > > > > > > > What we don't read or hear much about is what is going on in the > > > > Microsoft SOA universe. I know MS do not do much to push the > > concept > > > > of SOA, but a lot of SOA implementations take place in .NET > > > > environments. Most big organisations seem to have a mixture > > of .NET > > > > and Java. So what are MS doing about SOA middleware now that > > every > > > > platform vendor and his dog is offering an ESB? There is of > > course > > > > the spectre of Indigo on the horizon, but it is not readily > > apparent > > > > how this is going to fit into the SOA middleware scene. Do any > > of you > > > > have any information on this? Come to think of it, why are Sun > > and > > > > Microsoft so coy about these key aspects of their technology? > > > > > > > > Gervas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > > Computer software Computer aided design software Computer job > > Soa Service-oriented architecture > > > > 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. > > > > > 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/
