Gervas, I have been thinking about how to respond for a while. It's unfortunately still a misunderstanding.
Here's how I have been doing vendor-neutral technology pitches for years: -- Describe the problem - in this case architecture and design comes before technology -- Describe a solution - in this case SOA infrastructure mapped to the architectural and design requirements -- Give an example that works for any vendor (or at least multiple vendors) - in this case the products from IONA being a good potential fit for some of those requirements If I were working for another vendor, I would use that technology for the example. But in the examples I give, it could be any number of vendors. To me this isn't a sales pitch but a vendor neutral discussion about technology and requirements, using a particular vendor's product for an example to help prove the point. Has something changed? Is this not a good way to do a vendor neutral technology pitch anymore? Or is the problem simply that I work for a vendor? Thanks, Eric --- Gervas Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric, > > No apology called for. If I had really objected (as > some moderators > would have), I would not have approved your message. > > Whilst I appreciate the nobility of your intentions, > I have to say it > was a textbook example of a good pitch. Contrary to > popular myth, one > of the secrets of effective selling is to actually > believe in what you > are selling (and I do not mean in the meretricious > manner of temporary > assumption of belief as adopted by certain political > orators [TB, > perhaps??]). Perhaps you should use your obviously > natural talent in a > deliberately targeted fashion! > > Gervas > > --- In > [email protected], > Eric Newcomer > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Gervas, > > > > I'm sorry if it seemed like a sales pitch. It > wasn't > > my intention. I happen to think our technology is > a > > very good fit for some SOA architectures and > > requirements. > > > > From the recent conversations about what's > appropriate > > for the discussion group I thought it was ok to > post > > messages that were enthusiastic about a particular > > technology. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. > > > > To be clear, the question at the end was not about > the > > idea that our technology could be a good fit in > some > > SOA architectures, although since it was directly > > after the last paragraph I could see why someone > might > > think it was related only to that. > > > > My intention was rather to confirm the thrust of > the > > entire message, which was (at least this is what I > > meant it to be) that the design should be done > > independently of the vendor or technology choice. > > > > Eric > > > > --- "Gervas Douglas (gmail)" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Putting my moderator's hat on: > > > > > > Hmmm. That wasn't so much billboarding as a > gentle > > > but deadly sales pitch. > > > I like the assumptive (how could he possibly say > > > anything but "yes") close > > > at the end. Ever thought of moving into sales, > > > Eric??? > > > > > > Have fun! > > > > > > Gervas > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Eric Newcomer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: > > > > <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:35 PM > > > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] > Re: > > > SOA Infrastructure > > > > > > > > > > Hi Awel, > > > > > > > > I would agree 100% with what you are saying, > and I > > > > often tell our customers (and anyone else who > > > might be > > > > attending one of my talks, such as the one > next > > > week > > > > at the InfoWorld forum in San Fran) that it is > > > vitally > > > > important to start with the design and the > > > > architecture and make the technology choice > later. > > > > > > > > Especially if you are doing SOA it's important > to > > > do > > > > the design first and then see what technology > maps > > > > best. We do not suggest anything different. > > > > > > > > We are also very happy to identify the areas > where > > > we > > > > can contribute to any such architecture, such > as > > > > service enabling legacy applications, or > > > abstracting > > > > the messaging layer, if those are important > > > aspects of > > > > the architecture (as they are for some of our > > > > customers). If we don't fit, that's ok too. > We > > > are > > > > not trying to force ourselves into places that > > > don't > > > > make sense. > > > > > > > > But we do believe strongly that our technology > is > > > > good, proven in large scale demanding > applications > > > and > > > > it can be helpful. Not in every case of > course > > > but in > > > > many. > > > > > > > > So I think we are in agreement? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > --- Awel Dico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Eric; > > > > > > > > > > It is a good observation as to how the > vendors > > > are > > > > > approaching the > > > > > ESB product implementation. That diversity > may > > > be > > > > > positive for the > > > > > users - choose what best fit to their > situation. > > > The > > > > > reality from > > > > > your customers (users) perspective is > different > > > > > though. Many > > > > > enterprises do not just go and buy those > "ESB > > > > > products". They look > > > > > at the ESB capabilities as a pattern first - > at > > > > > least from the point > > > > > of view of the enterprise I work for. With > clear > > > > > understanding of > > > > > the capabilities, they map those > capabilities > > > with > > > > > the SOA > > > > > infrastructure requirement. This is > important > > > > > because you may not > > > > > need ESB at all (XML appliances may do the > job); > > > or > > > > > it is something > > > > > that you need right away, or it may be > something > > > for > > > > > the future. The > > > > > enterprise architecture has to come up with > the > > > SOA > > > > > technology > > > > > infrastructure reference architecture > > > accordingly. > > > > > Based on the > > > > > understanding of the capabilities required > and > > > > > enterprise > > > > > architectural guidelines, they start to > evaluate > > > ESB > > > > > products - may > > > > > take them for a test drive (Proof-of-concept > === 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/
