I just wanted to point out that a document about "SOA Infrastructure" from our smallest service is the most popular document we have. So even though Ron and others object to the term "SOA Infrastructure", it appears that application architects from Fortune 500 companies find the topic extremely interesting.
(Offering discounts strikes me as a worse offense at shameless billboarding, especially since purchasing research subscriptions is typically not a simple process in most F500 companies -- and we don't offer individual subscriptions. [ugh -- talking about this stuff makes me feel as if I'm really crossing the line -- my apologies again])
But I will happily buy our humble moderator a drink -- first chance we get to meet.
Anne
On 3/17/06, Gervas Douglas <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You have a fair point, Ron. Anne, for you that was pretty shameless
billboarding which I would never have let pass from a lesser individual!
Any other analysts in this Group care to peddle those of their wares
that are relevant to the discussion?? Anne and Ronald, yet again you
failed to offer the members of this Group a discount, much less a
large drink to your humble moderator.
Gervas
--- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com , Ron Schmelzer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How about SOA Implementation? If we're going to be grandstanding and
> pushing our products on this list (which is a no-no), all I can say is
> that ZapThink has over 400 pieces of research on our site, and all
of it
> is popular ;) Check out what we say on this topic by reading about the
> "SOA Implementation Framework" on our site.
>
> Ron
>
> Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> > A point of information:
> >
> > Burton Group (my employer) published a document in January called
"SOA
> > Infrastructure". It is the most popular document in our library. To
> > give you a little context, Burton Group provides research by
> > subscription to large enterprise clients (typically Fortune 500). We
> > provide four types of subscriptions: identity management, security,
> > networking, and application platforms. This report was published in
> > the application platforms service, which is the smallest of our four
> > services -- about half the size of the identity management service.
> > But it's the most popular document across all four services.
> >
> > The statement of problem that this document attempts to answer is:
> >
> > /What products and technologies should organizations use to implement
> > an infrastructure to support service-oriented architecture (SOA)?/
> >
> > I much prefer this term (SOA infrastructure) to the other term I
> > frequently hear: ESB. I just had a dialog with one of my clients
> > yesterday, and they used the term ESB to refer to the infrastructure
> > they intend to build to support their SOA initiative. (They don't
> > think of it as a product.) But I'm not willing to use the term ESB
> > because it is too overloaded.
> >
> > I'm willing to take suggestions for other names to describe this
> > infrastructure that supports SOA initiatives...
> >
> > Anne
> >
> > On 3/16/06, *Jerry Zhu* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:jerryyz@...>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > When we talk about architecture we need to be aware of
> > the context. Is it about software application or
> > enterprise wide IT planning? Each has different kinds
> > of architectures. In software application, for
> > example, there should be three kinds of architectures:
> > data, software, and system. For enterprise, there
> > could be more architectures as defined in FEAF.
> >
> > Infrastructure could refer to technology architecture
> > in EA. It may also refer to application's system
> > architecture. When we talk about buildings, there
> > maybe only one architecture. Building are things or
> > simple systems. Business or a software system is a
> > complex system that needs to be viewed in
> > multi-perspectives, hence multiple architectures.
> >
> > Jerry Z.
> >
> >
> > --- Steve Ross-Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <mailto:steve@...>> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it is wholly unhelpful to mix these terms.
> > > Let me explain
> > > further. There is a famous building in Paris (the
> > > Pompideux centre). It
> > > is a building that has an architecture which is
> > > something that
> > > architects produced. It's infrastructure is visible
> > > on the outside of
> > > the building - unusual because most are embedded or
> > > on the inside. The
> > > architecture was the blue print by which the
> > > structural engineers and
> > > builders delivered what was required. The
> > > architecture simply stated
> > > that the infrastructure was to be put on the outside
> > > and gave a clear
> > > description of what that meant.
> > >
> > > Clearly we do not talk about the architecture
> > > infrastructure of the
> > > Pompidu Centre being on the outside. We do talk
> > > about the
> > > infrastructure being on the outside. The danger is
> > > that we further
> > > promote poor understanding as to what is meant by
> > > architecture and we
> > > confuse it with infrastructure. Only this week I
> > > heard a CEO confuse
> > > the two thinking that the infrastructure was the
> > > architecture.
> > >
> > > Whilst I am on the topic I would like to make sure
> > > we are all of one
> > > mind. Architecture is not something that we do. It
> > > is not a verb. It is
> > > an artifact that is produced in the course of
> > > building a system.
> > > According to TOGAF it is "A formal description of a
> > > system". According
> > > to UML it "the organizational structure of a
> > > system". Architecting is
> > > something that Architects do and the output of what
> > > they do is an
> > > Architecture. I suggested at Web Services on Wall
> > > Street and I have
> > > still to hear anyone counter this - I'd love to have
> > > a debate and learn
> > > new tricks from those more learned than I - that
> > > there is not A in SOA.
> > > There is no clear, precise way within the accepted
> > > tools sets that can
> > > be said to define the SOA space, that are being used
> > > or can be used to
> > > "formally describe a system" or to describe "the
> > > organizational
> > > structure of a system".
> > >
> > > It would be very nice if in this group of interested
> > > parties we could
> > > actually establish what we mean by architecture and
> > > then be clear about
> > > how this might differ from the prevailing wisdom of
> > > TOGAF, UML, OMG and
> > > others. And if it doesn't how one might actually
> > > encode an
> > > Architecture. Is UML sufficient? Can we describe
> > > all of the
> > > interactions that occur between a set of services
> > > using UML in an
> > > unambiguous way? Could we do with BPEL or BPMN?
> > > Could we do with
> > > WS-CDL?
> > >
> > > Why should we care? Pretty simple really. When you
> > > Architect in the
> > > world of civil engineering, electrical engineering
> > > and so on, you use a
> > > formal description of the system (not all the detail
> > > but enough) to
> > > simulate and test. This is how Architects find that
> > > the stress levels
> > > on a specific beam are too high or find that they
> > > have over specified
> > > some tolerance can reduce the cost of a component.
> > > Without such a
> > > description this cannot be done. I would content
> > > that we should do the
> > > same in software. If you cannot write down your
> > > Architecture then you
> > > do not know enough about what you are doing, and you
> > > will have a high
> > > risk of failure because of this.
> > >
> > > I believe we can do better and make the dream of SOA
> > > a reality in a
> > > lower cost and lower risk way. In effect I think we
> > > can put the A back
> > > into SOA as opposed to continual talk of SOA when we
> > > really only mean
> > > Service Orientation - which is a step higher than
> > > Object-Orientation.
> > >
> > > The above rantings are not just the work of a
> > > demented long in the
> > > tooth perhaps should retire too old software guy.
> > > Rather they are an
> > > extract of many discussions with many practicing
> > > Architects who deliver
> > > real systems (not software products) that deliver
> > > real business benefit
> > > to real customers.
> > >
> > > Thoughts please .........
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Steve T
> > >
> > > On 15 Mar 2006, at 13:56, Ron Schmelzer wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, what exactly is architecture infrastructure?
> > > Aren't these two
> > > > different things... does it make sense to even
> > > combine these two words
> > > > together?
> > > >
> > > > Ron
> > > >
> > > > Anne Thomas Manes wrote:Gregg,
> > > >>
> > > >> A SOA infrastructure [sorry JP, but I think this
> > > term is useful]
> > > >> ought to support any type of communication style:
> > > synchronous vs
> > > >> asynchronous, request/response vs one-way, direct
> > > connection vs
> > > >> brokered, queued, pub/sub, Linda, etc. It's even
> > > better if the
> > > >> infrastructure is natively supported by most
> > > development platforms.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think this last point is the most serious
> > > downfall for J/JS. You
> > > >> had the luxury of developing your own
> > > communication infrastructure,
> > > >> and you chose to base it on J/JS. (I think this
> > > was a great decision
> > > >> for you.) Most organizations don't have that
> > > luxury, though. For
> > > >> them, software infrastructure development is not
> > > a core competency.
> > > >> So they buy it. And because a communication
> > > infrastructure is such a
> > > >> critcal component in their IT systems, they tend
> > > to buy it from
> > > >> solid, stable vendors -- IBM, Microsoft, BEA,
> > > Oracle, SAP, etc. None
> > > >> of these vendors provide native support for J/JS
> > > (or any Linda system
> > > >> for that matter).
> > > >>
> > > >> I've always been a big fan of Linda, but you
> > > must agree that it's a
> > > >> fringe technology. It's been around for ever, but
> > > never been a part
> > > >> of the mainstream. The key advantage I see for
> > > using SOAP as the
> > > >> foundation for SOA is that *everyone* provides
> > > native support for the
> > > >> technology.
> > > >>
> > > >> Anne
> > > >>
> > > >> On 3/14/06, Gregg Wonderly < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <mailto:gergg@...>> wrote:
> > > Anne Thomas Manes
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>> > I understand that the JERI stack opens J/JS
> > > up to allow
> > > >>> integration with
> > > >>> > other languages and protocols, but there are
> > > a number of features
> > > >>> in J/JS
> > > >>> > which are available only to Java
> > > applications.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There are a number of Web services features
> > > that are only available
> > > >>> to web
> > > >>> services applications.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Where is the line drawn to differentiate?I
> > > am not sure what
> > > >>> missing features
> > > >>> you think are problematic or which would cause
> > > problems.Can you
> > > >>> share some
> > > >>> specific concerns?This is really an
> > > interesting issue for me.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> At some point, the technology of choice is
> > > visible
> > === message truncated ===
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
< http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Computer+aided+design+software&w1=Computer+software&w2=Computer+aided+design+software&w3=Computer+job&w4=Soa&w5=Service-oriented+architecture&c=5&s=121&.sig=aLmDc98q-ezguJlYUiw3Rw >
> > Computer job
> >
< http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Computer+job&w1=Computer+software&w2=Computer+aided+design+software&w3=Computer+job&w4=Soa&w5=Service-oriented+architecture&c=5&s=121&.sig=S4rCT77z3xUeesYhvuqZ3g >
> >
> > Soa
> >
< http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Soa&w1=Computer+software&w2=Computer+aided+design+software&w3=Computer+job&w4=Soa&w5=Service-oriented+architecture&c=5&s=121&.sig=XVYKxWnIx0EdfkBS6DaTLQ >
> > Service-oriented architecture
> >
< http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Service-oriented+architecture&w1=Computer+software&w2=Computer+aided+design+software&w3=Computer+job&w4=Soa&w5=Service-oriented+architecture&c=5&s=121&.sig=i-_f4IMs4JCXEMjxqUGGtA >
> >
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture>"
> > on the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
<mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service < http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ NOD32 1.1431 (20060305) Information __________
> >
> > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> > __________ NOD32 1.1431 (20060305) Information __________
> >
> > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> > http://www.eset.com
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________
> Ronald Schmelzer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Senior Analyst
> ZapThink LLC
> Direct: 781-577-2779 / Main: 781-207-0203
>
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/
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.
