> ideal SOA scenario? Or do you consider it a vital piece an any
> decent company's IT environment?
>
> Personally, I'm still undecided. I have a strong fear of creating a
> huge, monolithic, centralized bottleneck and maintenance issue,
> while on the other hand I can't seem to be able to find a good "pure
> SOA" alternative.
If your ODS is a huge, monolithic, centralized bottleneck and
maintenance issue, then by all means find a way to get rid of it.
On the other hand I think trading one fad for another is not a good
practice either. "Pure SOA" is a fad just as much, even more, than
"ODS" was a fad a half dozen years ago.
If you have a set of services working on a common set of data,
executing business transactions, taking business measurements, and
gauging new decisions based on recent history, then those services may
benefit from sharing a well-defined database. Such a database may be
considered an "operational data store" and can be done well (performs
and is maintainable) or not.
What is a well-defined ODS? Read Ralph Kimball. He always has clearly
presented ideas based on real experience. Avoid Bill Inmon, who rode
the DW/ODS fad like a Maui wave.
For example, see http://www.dbmsmag.com/9712d05.html for some of
Kimball's ideas on ODS.
I am still looking for the Ralph Kimball of SOA to emerge.
-Patrick
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.
