buzz that often floats above the Web 2.0 community makes the dull
grey corridors of corporate IT look a lot less exciting. This makes
some people interested in taking both the enthusiasm for the ideas,
and the ideas themselves, and using them to improve the state of IT.
I am one of them. But a hype and buzz transplant is not at the heart
of the issue, it's the genuinely similar patterns and structures
between them that is. Of course, that presents its own set of
challenges, especially since Web 2.0 and SOA are different though
complementary in several important ways.
As I commented directly on Jason Kolb's blog post on this topic, it's
often too easy to focus on just one aspect of SOA or Web 2.0 and
compare them, and turn the question into a REST vs. SOAP debate, for
instance. With so much conceptual real-estate described by both
views, as top-level organizing principles, I do find that people
often get stuck on one particular piece or another. I've heard time
and again that "Web 2.0 is Ajax", or "Web 2.0 is RSS", or Web 2.0 is
some other small bit of technology. I've heard similar things about
Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA is about asynchronous messaging,
SOA is WS-*, etc). At some point, the noise surrounding the debate
distracts more than it helps, and that's certainly something we all
have to keep in mind.
I do like however Barry Briggs' line when he says: "SOA is
heavyweight but robust enterprise architecture; Web 2.0 is
democratic, social and participant-based. On the surface, they are
orthogonal. They target different problems: so it's just as hard to
imagine building a lightweight wiki with SOA as it is a global supply
chain with (say) MySpace.">>
You can read the whole article at:
http://au.sys-con.com/read/214151.htm
Gracias, Sandra Aguirre.
Gervas
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.
