Some references on the multiple companies who are finding building their SOA approaches using WOA would help. I know of a few (Overstock.com for instance) but these are far out weighed by those who are using WS-* as their basis.
Now I agree that the technology approach is bunkum, but so are statements claiming volume without numbers and references to back them up. Steve On 21/04/2008, Gervas Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sounds like an exhortation for a farm horse, but apparently it is > otherwise: > > <<A lot of analysts I respect have been pushing the concept of > Web-oriented architecture, or WOA, of late. For those unfamiliar with > the term, Dion Hinchcliffe has covered it extensively and Dana Gardner > has been singing its praises. To be honest, it looked like a term in > search of a foundation to this observer. We've already got RIA and > composite applications and mashups and Web 2.0 and SaaS and SOA, but I > figured I should ask a few architects what they think of the concept > to see if it's got traction in those circles. > > Granted, I only polled half a dozen people (though I'll note here that > they are half a dozen really smart people). The response I got from > all of them is that WOA strikes them as redundant and nothing > particularly new, an empty suit if you will. One wrote, "It reminds me > a lot of the attempt by someone to gain some name recognition with the > `SOA 2.0′ concept (which one vendor did try to use and then dropped > after it was rejected by the SOA community)." Another responded, "It's > the same old thing, relabeled with an even MORE unwieldy name." > > Yet another noted, "This is just composite Web apps." > > Not a single one of them voiced a problem with the notion that > Web-based development is an excellent place to concentrate your > resources. In fact, some of the architects stated they are eagerly > pursuing these sorts of development strategies. > > That said, no one showed any love for the "WOA" acronym. "God forbid > this take hold because it could complicate something the industry has > been trying to simplify," said one of the architects. He listed > numerous reason why WOA, as a term, could do more harm than good: > > * Users should have exactly one enterprise architecture, many > don't and they don't need the confusion of "which architecture should > I use?" > * WOA doesn't really have an underlying architecture, it's more a > set of best practices around REST, RIA and composite apps. > * If users perceive WOA to be outside the principles of SOA, it > could prove an excellent vehicle for building Web-based stovepipes. > * WOA toes and sometimes crosses the line of being technology > driven. "We plan on using Google Apps, but Google Apps needs to fit > into our structure, not the other way around." > > That last point about the potential technology driven nature of WOA > was a point of contention for another architect. "One of the big > problems we've had to fight is people who act as if SOA is tied to > middleware or specific standards like SOAP or to a specific data > format like XML. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Just because > you've got some new technology to use doesn't mean you go back to > shoddy engineering. Everyone should know better than to let a specific > hot technology drive the bus. It will cool off and you still need to > be in business." > > Strikeiron CEO Dave Linthicum has also blogged about the upside of > WOA. He pitched WOA as a potential gateway to SOA. > > What is changing quickly is that enterprises are finding that the > path of least resistance is in essence to build their SOAs on the Web, > using Web resources, including content, internet delivered APIs, and > Web services. Once there is success with WOA you'll see the same > patterns emerging behind the firewall, or SOA. > > The polled architects viewed that as a perfectly legitimate approach, > but one noted, "It's still SOA. I just don't see where WOA adds > anything. Terms like this tend to make people in the field angry. In > this case, it's an attempt to sell them something they've already > bought. I don't know anyone who doesn't want to use REST or build > composite apps using Web tools." > > Time will tell whether WOA gains traction, but these architects > expressed an unequivocal desire to have no more than one > something-oriented architecture in their lives.>> > > You can read this at: > > > http://soa-talk.blogs.techtarget.com/2008/04/21/does-woa-bring-anything-new-to-soa/?track=NL-130&ad=636149&asrc=EM_USC_3509455&uid=5532089 > > Gervas > > >
