PaaS = Platform as a Service e.g.: Salesforce.com's Force.com Bungee Connect Aptaria Longjump
See http://blogs.zdnet.com/SAAS/?p=472 Anne On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It looks like New Year is at the door-step... Are we in the > Prediction/Forecast mood already? :-) > > - Michael > > P.S. How about "all new things are just well forgotten old things"? Let's > replace PCs with the "remote terminals to the Cloud" and remove "service > desk/helpdesk" guys from our floors (well they, probably will hide in the > Cloud, but it will be the Cloud Problem) > > BTW, does PaaS stand for Process-as-a-Service? This becomes similar to the > picture where a big brother buys a candy for the little brother, unwraps it, > and even eats it ... on behalf of the little brother > > - Michael > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: mikomatsumura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:06:28 PM > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: ITIL & SOA Governanc > > I'm not going to say that ITIL is a reactionary command and control > system invented to address a pretty fundamentally broken system of > managing infrastructure and the CMDB is a vendor driven mish mash of > products designed to maximize software license footprint on fairly > tired system management console businesses. > > Oh wait, I just did. =) > > Perhaps that statement is a bit strong. ITIL actually contains a lot > of clues as to where the pain in IT is and as such it's a great tool > for battening down the hatches, lowering costs and automating the heck > out of your IT infrastructure. Which in this economic climate isnt a > bad thing. > > i just think that we might move towards a more enlightened way to > manage infrastructure that's driven from the service consumption side > through technologies like virtualization. I guess the over-reliance on > root cause analysis and service desk/helpdesk aspects of CMDB always > paint for me a picture of techies digging through the wreckage of a > crash that already happened. I'd like to see a future where systems > can adapt via policy to changes in the consumption patterns. > > I know it's science fiction today, but with trends in "cloud" > computing and PaaS, it wont be 2 years out but certainly within 10. > > My 2 cents, > Miko > > --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael Poulin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .> wrote: >> >> I solute to Anne on her provision! >> - Michael >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com >> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 1:31:15 PM >> Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] ITIL & SOA Governanc >> >> >> I also predicted circa 2006 that UDDI and CMDB would converge, >> although I wasn't blogging back then, so can't reference an article to >> justify my claim. I have a document in the Burton Group library that I >> wrote in October 2006 that states: >> >> "Watch for integration with IT management and governance: A SOA >> governance program should be an extension of an enterprise's existing >> IT governance program. SOA governance processes should blend naturally >> with traditional SDLC and IT management processes. Registry vendors >> have yet to deliver integration with configuration management >> databases (CMDBs) or IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) systems; however >> this type of integration should start to appear in 2007." >> >> Like Todd, I was a bit overly optimistic. I suspect that lack of >> standards for CMDB has constrained it growth into a general-purpose >> configuration management system. No one is yet considering the idea of >> managing application configuration files (e.g., WAR and EAR config >> files), much less service configuration files. CMDB is still pretty >> much limited to managing hardware appliances and core application >> infrastructure (database, app, and mail servers). It definitely >> doesn't get into change and configuration management of software >> componentry. >> >> Comments on Michael's points below... >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > com> wrote: >> > A couple of also interesting (I think) things to add: >> > >> > 1) with some knowledge and efforts, a UDDI may be used in the same > manner as >> > LDAP - you will be the master of its meta-data/schema and you will > be able >> > to store all information needed to "to be able to track a > fault/problem all >> > the way from the business process down to a switch, network card > or a cpu in >> > a server and vice versa" via its programmatic (vs. manual) interface >> >> The UDDI data model is very extensible. You can use a tModel to >> represent pretty much any thing or any relationship. So, yes, you >> could use UDDI to store all information needed to track a >> fault/problem all the way from the business process to a device or >> vice versa. But in order for this information to be useful, you would >> have to standardize the tModels that capture the information. >> Standardization of management information has been attempted many time >> before with little success. Think CIM and SML. >> >> > >> > 2) I have not seen or heard of such use of UDDI as I described in 1). >> > Probably, Anne will correct me here. Nevertheless, the task "to > track a >> > fault/problem all the way from the business process down to a switch, >> > network card or a cpu in a server and vice versa" is one of the > major ones >> > on the way to the SO model of the enterprise. I know that IBM hasn't >> > included UDDI support into is service registry/repository and > offered an >> > alternative solution for this >> >> I have never seen anyone capture this much information in UDDI. The >> Systinet-led GIF effort (now led by HP -- see >> https://h10078. www1.hp.com/ cda/hpms/ display/main/ hpms_content. > jsp?zn=bto& cp=1-11-130- 27^2804_4000_ 100_ _) >> defined standard tModels to capture service configuration information >> -- i.e., policies -- in order to enable interoperability among >> heterogeneous SOA infrastructure components. Quite a few vendors >> signed up to participate in GIF, including BEA, AmberPoint, Layer 7, >> Parasoft. At one point they had more than a dozen vendors >> participating in the effort. But GIF never attempted to capture >> configuration information down below the service level. GIF is still >> around, but I get the sense that interoperability among heterogeneous >> vendor products isn't as high a priority with the vendors as it once >> was. >> >> > >> > I agree with Kelly Emo on the mentioned statement: SO > registry/repository >> > needs some things that CMDB and UDDI include today, especially, > with regard >> > to governance (policies/procedure s) and operational business > service/process >> > changes. So, I solute to Todd with his Provision-2006. >> >> I doubt that CMDB will every be expanded to the point where it >> supports design time metadata management. There comes a point where >> you really want to separate design time and runtime information >> management. SOA repositories should support design-time governance >> processes. SOA registries typically support runtime governance >> processes (e.g., information exchange among runtime components). I >> would still like to see CMDB move up the stack and take over the >> runtime management role from SOA runtime registries. Integration among >> all these repositories (automatic propagation of information from one >> to another as services proceed through their lifecycles) >> would be really helpful. >> >> - Anne >> >> > >> > - Michael >> > >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> > From: Dennis Djenfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED] se> >> > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com >> > Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 8:45:51 PM >> > Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] ITIL & SOA Governance >> > >> > The current organization I'm working with are in the progress of > upgrading >> > from HP SOA Systinet 2.x to 3.0, and there has been a lot of talk > about how >> > the information in the register/repository could be integrated > with a CMDB. >> > The IT operation would like to be able to track a fault/problem > all the way >> > from the business process down to a switch, network card or a cpu in a >> > server and vice versa. I haven't seen a fully automated solution > to this >> > yet, and I haven't had the time to participate in the evaluation > of HP SOA >> > Systinet 3.0, but it was interesting to read this article, where > Kelly Emo >> > from HP says: >> > >> > "The new SOA infrastructure component captures more than UDDI > information, >> > it encompasses best practices, CMDB information, and sets the > stage for a >> > wider culture of governance" >> > >> > http://it.toolbox. com/blogs/ dana-gardners- briefing- direct/with- >> > systinet- 30-hp-broadens- soa-governance- role-to-encompas s-services- >> > lifecycle- business- processes- it-service- management- 27584 >> > >> > >> > // Dennis Djenfer >> > >> > >> > Todd Biske wrote: >> > >> > I'm not that familiar with the ITIL v3 processes (just got > registered for >> > some training in November), but from what I understand of IT Service >> > Management, I see no reason why the techniques of service management >> > shouldn't be applicable to either IT services (e.g. Build me a new > server) >> > or business services that are supported by It solutions such as a Web >> > Service. >> > As for the tooling, I absolutely think that we'll see convergence > in the >> > CMDB space and the Service Registry/Repository space. I've > blogged on this >> > in the past, as early as August of 2006, but my prediction has yet > to come >> > true. I think there's still too big of a gap between the > development side >> > of IT and the operational side of IT to really establish a market > for a >> > converged product. >> > Blog: >> > http://www.biske. com/blog/ ?p=64 >> > -tb >> > Todd Biske >> > http://www.biske. com/blog/ >> > Sent from my iPhone >> > On Oct 8, 2008, at 11:54 AM, delarco71 <[EMAIL PROTECTED] es> wrote: >> > >> > Dear friends, >> > >> > How ITIL v3 processes could be applied to Services Lifecycle ... or in >> > SOA Management area?. >> > >> > Is it possible that SOA/ITIL vendors approach in a future a >> > convergence between the CMDB and Repository products? >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > jose >> > >> > ____________ _________ _________ __ >> > >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg. com >> > Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1714 - Release Date: > 2008-10-08 >> > 07:01 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >
