I think you and others on this list have beat that one to death. The architecture until recently known as SOA is an architectural pattern, a journey, an approach to architecture, an approach to orgranization, etc that is about how applications are being built going forward AND about how IT aligns with the business. However I have to disagree with your continued implications that SOA is unrelated to tools and technologies. Anyone who designs a SOA without tools and technologies in mind is being pretty shortsighted. Dave
_____ From: Michael Poulin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 1:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: SOA is Dead +100 to "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. " This is because people tried to sell HOW instead of WHAT and WHY - Michael _____ From: Rob Eamon <rea...@cableone.net> To: service-orientated-architect...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2009 4:35:05 PM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: SOA is Dead 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 HYPERLINK "mailto:service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com"; \nservice-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, "Nibeck, Mike" <mike.nibeck@ ...> 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
