The problem, IMO, isn't that the concepts and principles are flawed. It's that "SOA" in the minds of many is synonymous with specific tools and technologies. They deploy an ESB and expect all kinds of benefits which have nothing to do with ESBs. The "EAI" term suffered the same perception problem--EAI still does for folks like Steve Jones, even though many of the principles behind EAI are the same as for SOA. :-)
"It always gets back to discussions of definitions, and approaches." That's what architecture is about, no? SOA is definitely not a clearly defined path. It is an architectural approach with many, many possible paths. IT should *never* try to "sell" anything at all to the business. -Rob --- In [email protected], "Nibeck, Mike" <mike.nib...@...> wrote: > > "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
