+1. If I could give it +2, I would. Every time I sit down and think about what it takes to make SOA successful, I don't think technology ever comes up on my list.
-tb On Mar 11, 2006, at 3:42 PM, JP Morgenthal wrote: > Eric, > > Technology is not required to implement anything. I can take any of > the bank services I represented in my example in my post and > implement them > with humans. Will I still need infrastructure, yes, probably a > building in > which to work, a phone, a pen, pencil, maybe I'll even throw in a > pad for > good faith. The one thing I don't need is technology (unless you > want to > consider the pencil technology, in which case I won't argue). > > The problem with saying SOA Infrastructure is that it immediately > associates in non-technical people's minds that this thing is > beyond them, > not in their field of vision, "that thing that IT does that we all > hate > because they're too slow doing it in the first place." > > I just worked with a company where we used SOA to define the entire > enterprise. The CFO and the sales team and the marketing team and > the loan > team didn't see SOA as technology. They saw it as the way they > were being > organized. They saw it as the way they define what they do to other > departments, they say it as requirement to develop a contract that > explains > to other groups how to use their services. > > SOA can be so much more than we're giving it credit for today. It's > only recently that I've seen the power of using in organizational > management. However, there are many thought leaders in this group > and if > you all continue to associated SOA with technology in the minds of > non-technologists, the whole value proposition of SOA as a way to > bridge IT > and business disappears. > > Given your investment in the ESB market, I'm sorry to say, these > people could care less about an ESB, a registry or an SOA governance > facility. > > But, for the record, your reply even states an "SOA Application", > hence, I say that you're talking about SODA infrastructure and not SOA > infrastructure. > > JP > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Eric > Newcomer > Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 10:13 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: SOA Infrastructure > > Hi JP - > > I am not sure what you think SOA Infrastructure means, > but to me it means the technology needed to implement > an SOA based application - i.e. an application > designed using an SOA. > > The coin in this case has two sides - yes, SOA based > design is independent of technology. However, > technology is needed to implement the design. > > I fail to see a problem in calling that technology > "SOA Infrastructure." > > Best, > > Eric > > > --- JP Morgenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Sorry, but I have to weigh in on the title of this >> thread. Here's a blog >> entry I just posted at: >> > http://www.avorcor.com/morgenthal/index.php?entry=entry060311-084440 >> >> SOA and SODA >> Saturday, March 11, 2006, 08:43 AM >> When the term SODA first started being bandied about >> I was less than >> enthusiastic about the terminology. SODA stands for >> Service-Oriented Design >> of Applications. However, there's been a lot of >> recent discussion of a topic >> termed "SOA Infrastructure", which has forced me to >> re-examine the SODA term >> and start to use it to help explain and >> differentiate between general SOA >> and a technological SOA. >> >> First of all, I do not believe there is anything >> called "SOA >> Infrastructure." As I explain SOA to my clients, SOA >> is a way of designing a >> system. A system is an abstract entity, like a >> lighting system, electrical >> system, and heating and cooling system. In this case >> the system we're >> designing is a business system. There's no >> infrastructure involved, just >> artifacts, components and the relationships between >> these two. >> >> An SOA can be used to design an Enterprise, a >> software system, even a >> telephone system. There's no limitation or inherent >> attribute that says that >> a service has to be described as a software >> component. To do so only limits >> the value of this architectural pattern and sets it >> up to be easily >> dismissed by non-technological personnel. >> >> When you get into discussions of SOA infrastructure, >> in my mind, you're in >> the SODA world. You're specifically talking about an >> implementation approach >> to a system designed using SOA. Things like >> registries and enterprise >> service buses are components of a software-only >> system. They have nothing to >> do with a banking system I designed using SOA that >> identifies each of the >> specific types of services the bank offers as a >> service. >> >> For example, I can design a bank system with a >> checking service, loan >> service, loan decisioning service, investment >> service, corporate banking >> service, etc. In each case, these services represent >> more than some Web >> service interface to the e-commerce offerings within >> each of these areas of >> the bank. They represent the service itself >> inclusive of the organization >> requirements, documents, processes, workflows, etc. >> >> So, stop abusing the term SOA and use the correct >> term for SOA relative to a >> software system, which is SODA. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: >> [email protected] >> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On Behalf Of Mukund >> Balasubramanian >> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:33 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: >> SOA Infrastructure >> >> Jerry: >> >> This is indeed a pretty good description and I agree >> with most of it. >> >> I don't agree with making as strict a relation as >> that of a type and >> instance. I think it is more appropriate to leave it >> at the level of >> defining architecture as the answer to the question >> "what are the parts and >> how do they behave" and design is the answer to the >> question "how are the >> parts actually going to be built". >> >> Mukund Balasubramanian >> CTO/Infravio Inc. >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jerry Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [email protected] >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Fri Mar 10 08:29:28 2006 >> Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: >> SOA Infrastructure >> >> Alex, >> >> Many here agree that architecture and design are two >> different things and architecture goes before >> design. >> Some may think that architecture is just a step in >> the >> design. I disagree. >> >> One way to differentiate the two is that >> architecture >> is the form or identity or a type. Design is an >> instance of that type and is a model that describes >> how the parts are implemented, what materials are >> used >> etc. A car is an identity as opposed to a boat and >> a >> generic description of a car is the architecture. A >> car can be designed into a wood car, a plastic car >> and >> metal car etc. So there are infinite designs with >> respect to the same architecture. Software >> architecture is technology dependent such as object >> oriented or service oriented etc. but it is platform >> independent. The same architecture can be designed >> using different platforms such as J2EE or .Net etc. >> >> >> Architecture has something to do with basic beliefs >> that are either accepted or rejected. Design is >> about >> how basic beliefs about some thing come into >> reality. >> >> Jerry >> >> --- Alexander Johannesen >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On 3/10/06, Jerry Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Architecture is not designed but defined. >>>> >>> >>> I think you'll find that architecture is used as a >>> word describing how >>> something is designed, again, pointing back to >>> design being something an >>> architect does. >>> >>> But anyways, if you look up the definitions for >>> architecture, there are as >>> many definitions as there are people trying to >>> define it. There is no one >>> answer to this, and I assert that the word itself >>> should be erased from >>> serious computer language. :) >>> >>> >>> Alex >>> -- >>> "Ultimately, all things are known because you want >>> to believe you know." >>> >> >>> - Frank Herbert >>> __ http://shelter.nu/ >>> __________________________________________________ >>> >> >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam >> protection around >> http://mail.yahoo.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> SPONSORED LINKS >> Computer software >> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Computer+software&w1=Computer > +software& >> > w2=Computer+aided+design+software&w3=Computer+job&w4=Soa&w5=Service- > oriented >> +architecture&c=5&s=121&.sig=fpXcvMH1T7dIWKArM_WfrQ> >> Computer aided >> design software >> > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > 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/
