So, if that's what you mean by T-SOA, then I have to say that I can't agree with your original premise at all (though I must sound like a heretic saying so on this email list!).
By all accounts, T-SOA has been _wildly_ successful... with one caveat... most people don't call it "SOA". XML, REST, Web 2.0 / AJAX, SaaS, cloud computing - all are applications of service-oriented technical principles (T-SOA) and yet no one calls these "SOA". This likely explains why you hear people (whether business people or EAs) saying "T-SOA is unsuccessful". They are probably thinking only about WS-* (and I'd agree on that point). I talk with lots of application teams that swear up and down they aren't doing SOA, and yet you actually look at what they are doing and it's riddled with service-oriented principles. T-SOA has become almost universal it seems. In constrast, let's look at the numbers for B-SOA: Gartner's latest survey shows that "SOA" adoption dramatically reduced in 2008. Taken in combinations with Anne Thomas Manes' analysis, that showed that the majority of people that say they are doing "SOA" in surveys aren't actually doing what we would consider "real" SOA (B-SOA), and this paints a pretty bleak picture for B-SOA. - Dan Foody --- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It depends what you mean. > > T-SOA for me is something pushed by vendors and those with vested > interest in the vendors. It is the thing that says that XML is game > changing and that all you need are a bunch of Web Services and BPEL > and you are away. > > Clearly SOA has to have a sound technical architecture,but that > certainly does not require the Web Services/BPEL/XML/REST > implementation centric view. > > A sound Business driven SOA approach can have _exactly_ the same > strong technical architecture as the previous set of solutions but > have them now delivered more effectively as a result of the different > structures, organisation, governance and commercials that delivers > them. > > That certainly isn't BS, its what I'm seeing (and delivering). > > Steve > > > 2008/11/15 Nick Gall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Ashley at Metamaxim > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm a bit confused too. > >> > >> Is it possible to imagine a T-SOA project that has a sound (realizable) > >> business case? > >> > >> Or is any SOA project with a sound business case necessarily B-SOA? > > > > A sound SOA initiative will have BOTH a sound business case and a sound > > technology architecture. Anything else is BS-SOA. > > Does that make it clearer? > > -- Nick > > >
