Steve Jones wrote: > On 20/12/06, Sebastian Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Gervas Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061214 20:53]: >> > Like it or not, in the corporate world Gartner's opinions carry a lot of >> > weight, even if merely as a butt-covering defence of decisions taken. If >> > you would like to read about their words of wisdom (this Group's largesse >> > does not extend to buying their reports), have a look at: >> > >> > >> > >> <<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/business-process-management/message/262> >> >> Seems like a safe bet this time, because we at IDS Scheer already enhanced >> our ARIS products to transform business process models (EPC notation) >> directly to executable BPEL. If you are interested how a business-driven SOA >> can look like check out our expert paper >> >> >> http://www.ids-scheer.com/sixcms/media.php/2646/ARIS_Expert_Paper_-_Way_to_SOA_Klueckmann_2006-09_en.pdf >> > > Its one of those interesting bits how old approaches suddenly become > "required" for SOA. The paper proposes a top down process > decomposition approach (which has several issues in my experience) and > a bottom up (from technology) discovery of services than then "meld" > together. > > In reality therefore this is a Process Oriented Architecture (as it > places process as the important entity) and then use a technology > driven approach to define services. This makes three big assumptions > > 1) That process can be used to describe everything in an enterprise (it can't) > 2) That the existing estate is the best place to start when > considering your service model (it isn't) > 3) That WS-* = SOA (it doesn't) > > It would be great if, for once, a vendor took a big step back and > thought "hang on this SOA stuff is a new way of looking at business > and IT, so maybe that means more than just re-badging our existing > product and claiming its a pre-req for decent SOA" >
It would be great, but the vendors then have to work harder, maybe write a new product etc. Far too much effort - much better to pervert everything that comes along and keep selling the same old product. What beats me is how given it's so damn obvious the vendors are doing this why it is a bunch of apparently intelligent developers keep on getting hood-winked by this garbage instead of saying "I've seen that before, let's try something else". There are other issues as well of course such as the large number of developers that insist on new things looking like what they already know - you can only make so much progress that way. Perhaps, more disturbingly we allow these vendors to dominate JCP (why is Graham Hamilton thanked for creating this?) and other standards bodies in the belief they'll actually serve our interests - and to be fair, they will but bet that they'll do the absolute minimum. We also allow these vendors to tell us what SOA is and how we should implement it - because, of course, they're not biased...... > That is one reason I bother with the REST arguments I have (and am > learning from) as they are trying to do something different. > Indeed. At the end of the day, if something is valuable I want to know about it - but I'm not a lemming developer which means I'm going to ask all sorts of nasty questions and demand some decent answers before I'll commit to something. And once I commit, I'm gonna beat on vendors to do what I need not let them tell me what I need. Happy Christmas all, Dan.
