Gregg, In short, based on my earlier assessment, I would have to describe the failure as a failure to start. The project that moves forward is severely hindered by shortsightedness and the need to cripple the architecture due to the overwhelming lack of understanding for what was designed.
JP On Fri Jul 18 09:47:28 CDT 2008, Gregg Wonderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > JP Morgenthal wrote: >> Interface-based design and design-by-contract are not >> one-in-the-same, but as long as a majority of individuals >> implementing SOA don't understand this delicate delineation, SOA >> will suffer. Clearly, for many software engineers, they see a >> service as a reusable component, while for many of us that have >> been at this game awhile, we see a service as a more declarative >> entity oriented strongly toward a business bent. >> >> Having to share SOA design with engineers that don't get it has >> consistently led to a failure to move forward with the SOA design >> in favor of a modified component-oriented design. Hence, failed >> SOA. > > So what is the failure that you see JP? What happens literaly? > Services stop working? People can't use the services to meet > their needs? Scalability? Expandability? I think understanding > the failure modes can help identify where things fell short. > > Gregg Wonderly >
