<<Have you ever noticed how magical the Web is?
I mean, sure, it's technology, not magic. But it's almost as if
Web-enabling something gives it a new life, a new depth that just
makes applications more dynamic, more fun, more
magic.
Maybe that's why WOA Web-oriented architecture is generating such a
buzz, even though, at its technological heart, it's basically
Web-enabling SOA.
Back in September, when I interviewed Gartner vice president Nick
Gall, he offered a simple formula for describing WOA:
WOA = SOA + REST + WWW
Gall first coined the term back in 2005, so in a way, he's entitled to
define it although, to be fair, Dion Hinchcliffe has contributed
substantially to the effort.
When I spoke with Gall, he mentioned Gartner was working on a research
note about WOA. It published this week under the title, "Tutorial:
Web-Oriented Architecture: Putting the Web Back in Web Services."
If you're rolling your eyes, you're probably not alone. The report's
co-author, Anthony Bradley, even blogged about the report under the
insightful, if somewhat sarcastic, title, "I Just Learned SOA and Now
I Have to Learn WOA"?"
I can see how some would think WOA is a shell game. Gartner defines
"Web-oriented architecture" as sub-style of service-oriented
architecture, based on the Web. And just like it's SOA sire, WOA
suffers from a lot of the same problems: An imprecise definition,
vague statements about "architectural style" instead of specifications
or standards, and few actual real world deployments. Some say it
really just boils down to choosing REST over SOAP.
Dion Hinchcliffe posted a very thorough explanation of the functional
difference between SOA and WOA earlier this year. But what I haven't
seen is a simple, straightforward and short take on why businesses
should care about WOA, particularly given the disillusionment with SOA.
It looks like this might be one of the issues the Gartner report tries
to pin down, given that the report's summary includes this:
"WOA's goal is to transform traditional application-to-application
integration from a `rat's nest' of specialized interfaces into a
generic web of globally linked hypermedia."
That's about the best explanation I've seen on why businesses should
care about WOA. To simplify even further, I would offer this summary,
taken from my readings and interviews on WOA:
WOA offers the same benefits of SOA, plus all the pros of the Internet
URI-identified endpoints, HTTPS and, perhaps most importantly, mashup
capabilities.
You'll notice that what's missing from that summary are the downsides
of WOA. I am certainly not trying to pretend there aren't downsides
although at this point, the cons are pretty fuzzy. I'm just trying to
give you an idea of the business case for WOA and why it's attracting
everyone's attention right now.
Obviously, Gall isn't going to republish a $495 research note in his
blog, but he does post Gartner's five fundamental, generic interface
constraints of WOA:
1. Identification of resources
2. Manipulation of resources through representations
3. Self-descriptive messages
4. Hypermedia as the engine of application state
5. Application neutrality
The post elaborates more on the meaning of "application neutrality."
Those are technical constraints, as they should be. After all, WOA,
like SOA, will be built with technology and planning, not magic.
Still, a little web pixie dust might be just the thing to fix the
disillusionment with service-oriented architecture Web or otherwise.>>
You can read this at:
Gervas
