On 6/8/07, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nope. The point I'd stress is the one you've made here is that this is > about SOFTWARE architectures. The point I've made over and over again is > that part of the IT problem is that we are still looking at the software > level and we aren't moving upwards towards the business architecture. So one > of the reasons I make the comments I do is that I look from a business > service perspective and assess whether at that level there is any different > between approaches.
Sure. I suppose one needs to look at *both*, but I'd like to focus on the software in this thread. > The basic test is "if I replaced this with flying monkeys, and it worked, > would the business care" and for any competent software architecture the > answer is "no", the question on software architecture is competence not > perfection and too often in IT we become obsessed with IT perfection to the > detriment of business competence. I think business has a tendency to accept "works at the moment" as "works" (i.e. with little regard for evolvability). But that's a topic for another day. For the purposes of this thread, I agree with you. Ok, so we agree that we've got a good method for evaluating software architecture. I honestly thought we'd have trouble with that (hence the new subject line). Next question then - getting back onto the topic of Web services - has anybody used this method on any WS-* based systems? Mark.
