Christopher, Flexibility is my-SOA as well and always was. Unfortunately, massive IT development forces either do not understand this word, or it is too difficult (sorry, not simple enough) to them, or they are too busy with coding Web Services to put attention on it.
Service orientation is flexibility and adoptability to changes. I am writing about it since 2006. Anne meant (this is my opinion only) that management and business do not believe in SOA-as-integration solution because it does not provide for promised business benefits. This is absolutely true. This "SOA" is or should be finally dead. The service orientation called 'SOA' is perfectly alive and will be alive for long because service orientation is the core of the business (does IT likes it or not). The more service orientation would be provided by IT, the better for both IT and Business. - Michael ________________________________ From: Christopher Frankland <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2009 8:52:33 PM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: SOA is Dead Flexibility. This is the word that I associate most with SOA. I don't understand what the problem is with explaining to clients that having a service orientated environment provides flexibility to the work environment. Maybe that is a little bit simplistic, but too much complexity early on followed by a bombardment of products is enough to scare any prospective client. Providing a high level picture and providing simplified examples, i.e.information layer web services has, for me, been a fairly successful entry point for explaining what SOA is and does. Invariably, the client often comes back with further questions, how do we monitor usage? How do we control service versioning? etc... This opens the gate for further explanations. I work with a particular vendor, however, I try to avoid pushing specific products until the client has a good understanding of what SOA is and what it does. FYI...I'm actually not in sales, but even working on the technical side the paths invariably cross :) On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Eric Newcomer <e_newco...@yahoo. com> wrote: Hi Anne, I am sorry if I misunderstood something. But I was unsure what you meant. On the one hand you say we shouldn't use the word "SOA" any more, but on the other hand you say we should still promote all the ideas and concepts the word is currently used to communicate. I am sorry - I am a bit lost here if cost wasn't the main issue you were getting at. I was thinking your suggestion was to seek low cost alternatives to implement SOA, or whatever you prefer to call it now. Eric ________________________________ From: Anne Thomas Manes <atma...@gmail. com> To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2009 7:41:24 AM 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 <e_newco...@yahoo. 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 <mikomatsumura@ yahoo.com> > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. 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 >> > > > > >
