Nick, I have no issue with REST, WOA, etc. They're wonderful contributions as application architecture styles. They'll land right up there with other contributions like client/server and 3-tiered computing. Congratulations to Roy.
There are a number of people who don't think that the biggest issue in the enterprise is the application architecture style, myself included. I honestly don't care which style you go with (rich composites w/SOA, webby w/WOA, etc.) I'll avoid commenting on your misconceptions about SOA and chalk it up to your being at Gartner too long coupled with your recent celebrity status around WOA. Honestly Nick - it's not even worthy of a response. Jeff --- In [email protected], "Nick Gall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 1:35 PM, jeffrschneider > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My concern is that WOA seems to focus on application architecture, > > where SOA has the opportunity to bring advances in enterprise > > architecture at the portfolio level. > > My concern with SOA is that it is SO conceptual that it ends up being > only an "aspirational architecture": a set of goals with absolutely no > insight/constraints on how to achieve them. See > http://ironick.typepad.com/ironick/2007/09/soa-sometimes-i.html . > SOA's goals are things like reuse/sharing, agility, loose coupling, > robustness, scalability -- but it provides no clue as to how to > achieve these timeless goals. And believe me, "make it a service with > a service interface" is not NEARLY enough of a clue. > > My deep satisfaction with WOA is that it provides a wealth of useful > constraints at an appropriate level of abstraction that actually help > architects/designs build systems that deliver on the aspirations of > SOA. Just look at the differences in the discussion threads between > this Yahoo group and the REST Yahoo group. The REST group has many > extremely pragmatic threads about how to actually design systems that > are sharable, agile, loosely coupled, robust, and scalable. > > I'd rather be part of a useful discussion of actual design advice in > the REST group even if it "seems to focus on application > architecture", than be part of the useless debates about what is SOA > in this group. > > Don't you find it interesting that the Web is delivering on all the > aspirations of SOA without ever needing to use the term? I do. > > -- Nick >
