Now all we need is some of the let us say more "marketing lead" organisations out there to follow suit :)
What I'd like to see, not so much from infrastructure (Middleware et al) vendors but from package and biz solutions vendors, is a clear Service Architecture for a product, rather than a list of end-points. Steve On 02/07/07, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 On 30 Jun 2007, at 19:47, Eric Newcomer wrote: We at IONA would not claim "SOA compliance" since such a thing doesn't exist and probably can't or at least shouldn't. SOA is a style of design, or an approach to IT. It's not something with which any particular product can be compliant since any number of technologies can be (and have been) successfully used to imlpement an SOA. That means it's how you use the product, not the product or technology itself, that needs to be SOA compliant. Eric ----- Original Message ---- From: Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:11:18 AM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] SOA-compliant And here in lies the problem.... I've done this on several occasions with product teams who make the valid point "Yes we know that it isn't, but the analysts are saying things must be SOA and customers are looking for SOA, so we say we have SOA and people buy it" No-one ever advertises "Pretty much like our old product, we've just put three more blades on it to see if you will buy the same stuff again" or "gets clothes as white as everyone elses product" and certainly not "Its a creme for your face, it might help it might not, we just use phrases like fructose and aqua so you won't realise its just sugar and water". That said I'd argue that it should be possible to have a standard of both architectureal and technical compliance to SOA principles, rather than the current raft which is just right-click expose web service on the existing code base. Steve On 27/06/07, JP Morgenthal <morgenthaljp@ avorcor.com<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Now that we're all in agreement, who will carry the message back to the > pathetic marketing staffs within these vendors? > > :-) > ____________ _________ _________ ____ > JP Morgenthal > President & CEO > Avorcor, Inc. > 46440 Benedict Drive > Suite 103 > Sterling, VA 20164 > (703) 649-0829 x 101: Office > (703) 554-5301 : Cell > morgenthaljp@ avorcor.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ____________ _________ _________ ____ > ** > > *Confidential:* The information in this e-mail message (including any > attachments) is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above > and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended > recipient of this message or an agent responsible for delivering it to the > intended recipient(s) , be hereby notified that you have received this > message in error. Any review, dissemination, distribution, printing or > copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you believe you have > received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by > return e-mail and delete this message from your system(s). > > > > On Jun 27, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Mark D. Carlson wrote: > > > For this term to have meaning one would have to ask "Compliant according > to what defined standard or specification? ". If I assert that a Web > Service is compliant with WS-I Basic Profile 1.0, that assertion can be > tested either manually by reviewing its characteristics against the > published rules or in an automated fashion using one or more tools. In > short, my compliance claim could be verified. > > > This vendor's claim of "SOA compliance" can neither be proved nor > disproved in absence of some finite set of compliance tests or at least a > widely agreed upon specific definition. Their claim is like claiming > "object orientation compliant" or "distributed computing compliant" or > "client server compliant". It is a marketing construct and useless for any > real evaluation of their product. > > Thanks, > > Mark > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* service-orientated- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ > mailto:service- <service->orientated-architecture@ yahoogroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Teresa Jones > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:30 AM > *To:* service-orientated-architecture@ yahoogroups.com > *Subject:* [service-orientated -architecture] SOA-compliant > > > I'm currently looking at a CRM product that the vendor claims is > 'SOA-compliant' yet it is also claimed to be an n-tier architecture. A > quick search on the concept of SOA-compliance brought up this article:- > http://blogs.ittoolbox. com/eai/engineering/archives/my-soa-compliant > -toaster-and-cell- phone-7362<http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/eai/engineering/archives/my-soa-compliant-toaster-and-cell-phone-7362> > which was quite fun! > I suspect that the CRM vendor concerned actually means that you can > integrate with it using web services.... > Question for the group - can an application be regarded as > SOA-compliant? Or is that rather a meaningless phrase? > thanks > Teresa > > > > ------------------------------ Pinpoint customers <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48250/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v9.php?o=US2226&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=AprNI&s=Y&s2=EM&b=50>who are looking for what you sell.
