"My point is that IT groups should no long attempt to
sell "SOA" to the business. "SOA" is now a bad word.'
So by changing what we call it, it will somehow become relevant and
useful? Couldn't we be seeing a core, fundamental problem with SOA as a
viable solution. Regardless of why or where it is breaking down, I
think it's safe to say that it is frequently breaking down. Not all the
time, as members of this can attest to, but if you look at the ratio of
good core content vs.. semantic discussions of this list over the last
4+ moths, very little actual details are emerging. It always gets back
to discussions of definitions, and approaches.
The move from client-server to web worked not only because it was
"better", but because it was a clearly defined, different approach to
solution development. SOA (or whatever you call it) is too similar to
past efforts, and isn't a clearly defined path.
Just MHO.
_mike
________________________________
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Anne Thomas Manes
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: SOA is Dead
Read my post again Eric. I explicitly berated teams for focusing
on
silly technical debates. It's not a question of big or little
SOA or
SOAP vs REST. My point is that IT groups should no long attempt
to
sell "SOA" to the business. "SOA" is now a bad word.
And--btw--only big transformation efforts, where SOA was part of
something bigger, produced significant benefits. Little SOA
takes too
long to deliver value. But big SOA is worse if it isn't part of
something bigger. Spectacular results requires a spectacular
commitment to change.
Anne
On 1/6/09, Eric Newcomer <[email protected]
<mailto:e_newcomer%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> To me the message sounds more like "Big SOA" is dead - i.e.
> those high-priced SOA software packages complete with huge
services
> contracts that some vendors have been promoting. Not SOA
itself.
>
> Regarding the Web, I think most innovation in distributed
computing is
> happening there now, but traditional systems aren't going away
any time
> soon. The cost of rearchitecting everything to REST is just
too high to
> make it a practical suggestion.
>
> I would also like to put in another plug for the OSGi
Framework here, since
> it is SOA based and is gaining traction, not losing ground.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mikomatsumura <[email protected]
<mailto:mikomatsumura%40yahoo.com> >
> To: [email protected]
<mailto:service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 12:22:29 PM
> Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: SOA is Dead
>
>
> It's certainly one way of looking at it.
>
> Another way of looking at it is that it's alive and well in
2009.
>
> I think as an all-singing all-dancing transcendental
architecture it's
> certainly going to experience a significant impact as IT
begins to
> realize it's new year's resolution to become more "fit".
>
> But it remains the case that the need to organize and abstract
> capability for combinatoric reuse and to overcome
heterogeneous legacy
> still remains a large and challenging sore spot to agility in
the
> enterprise. Whatever the efforts to address this challenge are
called,
> the winners of that game will do better than the losers.
>
> My 2 bits,
> Miko
>
> --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com,
"Anne Thomas
> Manes" <atma...@... > wrote:
>>
>> This post should generate a bit of discussion:
>>
>>
> http://apsblog. burtongroup. com/2009/ 01/soa-is- dead-long-
live-services.
> html
>>
>> Anne
>>
>
>
>
>
>
