Hi Rob, I'll answer on-list as I think it's an important set of topics to discuss.
First of all, I do agree Governance is clear for any architectural approach. SOA-ish projects are becoming neatly "governable" for a few reasons though imho. One of the enablers is the happy occasion that there are an ever- increasing quantity of XML based elements in the SOA landscape (whether you're using WS or not) and that the ability to parse, validate and otherwise automate governance aspects is a very handy notion with respect to increasing the transparency of architectural elements including policies but assertions and declarations of all kinds. This enables a larger set of stakeholders to participate in the governance model, although not all stakeholders will express themselves as customized repository validation parsers, but many might through simpler registry repository based policy assertion user interfaces common to the best products in thie category. Sure a shot of skepticism is most welcome. I think if I were to read this comment out of the blue I would also disagree... I'll try to contextualize my statement about WS as I agree it's important to be clear and not conflate technology implementation with architecture. Web Services obviously doesnt equal SOA they are neither neccesary nor sufficient to establish a decent SOA. However, as an enabling technology for *some* SOA projects, they provide a reasonably handy approach to some of the interoperability challenges. That said, web services certainly raise as many issues as solved, particularly since they do such a "good job" of punting a lot of the management and governance issues to external systems. Anyhow, this particular talk was focused on two customers who were both very keen on WS, so the comments may have been more focused on SAS and Sprint Nextel... I appreciate your comments and feedback and your points are well taken! Miko --- In [email protected], "Rob Eamon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd argue that governance is no more and no less a big deal in SOA than > it is with any other architectural approach. If one is to establish > enterprise-wide guidance/constraints on solution designs, then > governance is key regardless. > > Bummer that the article seemed to equate SOA and web services. > > "...said Web services standards are making it much easier than in older > approaches such as EDI." > > Hmm, really? I remain skeptical about this anecdotal claim. Issues with > EDI exchanges usually have nothing to do with process and everything to > do with message content--something that doesn't magically disappear > with "Web services standards." And those don't address content in any > meaningful way. Content and layout are the issue, not how said content > gets there. > > -Rob >
