I am with Mike and ZapThink - when you constrict a service, you might need to do some integration work but just integration - "connecting systems to address a particular business" requirement - is not enough for claiming the service capabilities.
- Michael ________________________________ From: "Nibeck, Mike" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 2:20:49 PM Subject: RE: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Yefim Natis is sure that "SOA is integration" Zapthink has a very specific take on SOA and integration. They state the following: - One goal of SOA- Integration as a byproduct ofService composition - One Goal of legacy integration: building Services tosupport this goal, NOT connecting systems toaddress a particular business need Their primary point being that in a SO architecture, integration is simply one of the steps or parts of a composition, and it no longer gets seen as a distinct and separate set of processes or technologies. In most cases, integration efforts are designed to somehow "join" two or more disparate systems. If however the point of interaction is a higher level business service contract, the individual integration points become less relevant. You will always have the need to interact with remote systems, and the lower level details will still be very similar to traditional integration efforts, but these efforts will exist in a larger context, the service model, that will hopefully not be directly impacted by the individual integration efforts. _mike ________________________________ From: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:service- orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of htshozawa Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 6:43 AM To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com Subject: [service-orientated -architecture] Re: Yefim Natis is sure that "SOA is integration" IMHO, isn't integration just one objective of SOA. Isn't SOA an architecture which will make integration easier. I'm afraid that the best way to just eliminate redundency may result to just using products all from one vendor. I think there is a need to distinguish between migration to a single vendor and SOA. I personally favor, create an architecture and a "suggested" implementation plan, but to start the actual implementation with a single project. H.Ozawa --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, "Gervas Douglas" <gervas.douglas@ ...> wrote: > > Here is what Anne's blog has to say on this: > > <<According to this report by Jack Vaughn at SearchSOA | TechTarget, > Yefim Natis asserted "SOA is integration" at last week's Gartner AADI > Summit. The assertion produced the usual firestorm of commentary on > the Yahoo! SOA discussion list. Michael Poulin started the discussion > with this comment: > > "What can we do to slow down spreading such Integration SOA madness?" > > My response followed suit: > > "While I agree with the last line ["SOA is less a technology than > a way to dependably extract business value from technology." ], I > disagree with the leading one: "SOA is integration" . Many > organizations mistakenly perceive SOA as an integration strategy. But > it is not. SOA is about architecture. To achieve SOA, you must > rearchitect your systems. You must remove the deadwood. Every > organization has too much stuff -- too many redundant applications and > data sources. SOA is about cleaning house. You will not simplify your > environment, reduce costs, and gain agility until you reduce that > redundancy." > > We have 17 messages in the thread so far, and our debate was picked up > yesterday by Loraine Lawson at ITBusinessEdge. Loraine admonished us > for our "boil the ocean" perspective of SOA. As many SOA case studies > indicate, "SOA" works well for integration. I put "SOA" into quotes, > though, because I assert that these integration case studies are not > examples of service oriented architecture (SOA). The are examples of > service oriented integration (SOI). i.e., they are examples of > projects that used service oriented protocols (e.g., WS-*) and > middleware (e.g., ESB) to integrate two or more application systems. > But from an architectural perspective, you still have monolithic > systems bridged by integration middleware. > > Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but I think it's important to > distinguish between integration and architectural activities. It's > fine to use service oriented middleware to implement integration > projects, but then you need to readjust your expectations. Most > organizations that I speak with say that the goals of their SOA > initiative are to reduce costs and increase agility. Unfortunately, > these organizations aren't likely to achieve these goals if their > projects only focus on integration. (Also see Chris Haddad's > perspective on these success stories.) > > In the research that Chris and I conducted last year, we found only > four companies that had achieved real success in their SOA initiatives > -- i.e., they met their goals to reduce costs and increase agility. > Their successes were astounding, and they delivered positive returns > on investment in less than 12 months. In all cases these companies > focused on architecture -- not integration. > > Service oriented architecture is hard work. It's disruptive. It's a > political minefield. It involves going through the application > portfolio and identifying redundant applications that can be > decommissioned and replaced by a single service. But no one ever wants > to open that can of worms. Many folks live by the adage, "If it ain't > broke, don't fix it." There's way too much other stuff to do. But each > additional application increases the annual maintenance and operations > budget. And for many of those applications, the cost of maintaining > the application exceeds the value it brings to the business. It's just > good business sense to eliminant some of that redundancy. And by the > way, the CFO is going to be looking to reduce the IT M&O budget this > year. There is no better time to start an application rationalization > effort.>> > > You can find it at: > > http://apsblog. burtongroup. com/ > > together with a photo of Anne looking very canny!! > > Gervas > > --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, "Steve Jones" > <jones.steveg@ > wrote: > > > > Not really, the argument appears to be more about what is integration, > > for instance whether process and choreography count as integration > > and whether more dynamic interaction models count as integration. > > > > I think that most people on this list agree that SOA is > > _predominately_ a governance/organisa tional/business/ thinking thing, > > but that there are SOA _technologies_ which are related directly to > > implementation. One of the on going challenges in this group is the > > two different worlds of SOA. > > > > Far from being vacuous that is in fact the biggest and oldest > > challenge of IT and the point of SOA is that it can have the > > discussion on both sides but its failing is that it still hasn't made > > the difference clear. > > > > Define integration in a tight and specific way. > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > 2008/12/20 Nick Gall <nick.gall@> : > > > Doesn't the suspicion that SOA is vacuous grow stronger when you see > > > that we can't even agree about the relationship of SOA and > > > integration? > > > > > > > > >
