I agree with Eric on "pure" technical ground that it's difficult to
claim "SOA compliance", but as Steve pointed
out, I think it's possible to have a gimmick to be "SOA compliance".

There are many "SOA" project that end up just using web service for
transmission and using BPMS
to do "graphical programming". It's difficult to expect too much from
just doing these as customers
usually finds out soon enough, but I do have to say they are greatly
helping to spread the acronym SOA.

I think the question is, if it's better to promote even though the
concept is not absolutely correct,
or to have a limited promotion on the correct concept.

H.Ozawa

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

Reply via email to