2008/12/22 Gervas Douglas <[email protected]>: > This Group is replete with technical geniuses with deep experience of > designing, implemeting and maintaining complex enterprise systems - > which is marvelous! However to an outside non-technical observer many > of the arguments and opinions are bafflingly arcane as an inevitable > result. Looking to explain it the non-techy senior executive wielding > purchasing power, do you think the following proposition would be a > resonable if slightly over-simplistic explanation of SOA and integration: > > "If a greenfield enterprise system is designed and implemented > according to SOA principles it will naturally have intrinsic seamless > integration capabilities now and in the future."
That sounds exactly like a vendor would pitch it yes ;) What I'd say is that a _standards_ based integration approach will have a reduced _cost_ of integration and an approach that focuses on integration as part of the _infrastructure_ will be better able to industrialise (further reduce the costs) integration. The key is to treat integration as purely an enabler, and thus as a commodity and manage and procure it in that way. SOA helps you make integration a commodity by providing standardised ways of looking at services and enabling the relegation of integration to the infrastructure and enabling the business to concentrate on the value. SOA makes integration cheap, if you think of Services as important and integration as a commodity. > > Gervas Steve > > --- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" > <jones.ste...@...> wrote: >> >> 2008/12/22 Michael Poulin <m3pou...@...>: >> > Dear Jeff, >> > could you, please, be so kind to tell what this means: "Stop the > bullsh!t. >> > If I see another presentation on governance, I'm going to drive to > Boston >> > and start uninstalling PowerPoint on analysts hard drives." with > regard to >> > our discussion? >> > From the Yefim's message to me: >> > "SOA is a very close cousin of three-tier architecture. ... SOA > is not >> > integration, but it differentiates from 3T that preceded it by being >> > designed for heterogeneity." And this is what I praise the Lord for! >> > BTW, does anybody know how the service-oriented integration > differs from the >> > NON-service-oriented integration? >> >> Most old style EAI was (IME) about shifting documents from A to B with >> some mediation around it. These were either brokers (like MQSI) which >> had some form of queue to queue pipeline or something a bit more >> process oriented but fundamentally it was about linking endpoint A to >> endpoint B without any real consideration about exposing a service >> interface or making that interface discoverable. >> >> In a sense (a loose sense) the Technical SO world is the combination >> of this mindset with the CORBA/RMI/Jini world of having a published >> and discoverable interface but providing the fabric via which >> integration and mediation can happen. >> >> Somewhat entertainingly however the analysts have pretty much all not >> spotted the number of old style EAI products that have had an SOA >> veneer lobbed on top. You can put lipstick on the pig... but its >> still a pig. >> >> Steve >> >> > Cheers, >> > - Michael >> > ________________________________ >> > From: jeffrschneider <jeffrschnei...@...> >> > To: [email protected] >> > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 1:17:50 PM >> > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Yefim Natis is sure > that "SOA >> > is integration" >> > >> > Yefim wants 'service oriented integration' ? Praise the lord. We can >> > slap some basic policies around that and make it practical. >> > >> > Stop the bullsh!t. If I see another presentation on governance, I'm >> > going to drive to Boston and start uninstalling PowerPoint on >> > analysts hard drives. >> > >> > Merry Christmas, >> > Jeff >> > >> > --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, "htshozawa" >> > <htshozawa@ ..> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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? >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >
