Fully agree with Rob and Dave. IMHO, using such a splashy title not backed up or even contradicted by the content of the message is a form of bad journalism and discredits the author.
Sorry, Anne, you hadnt accustomed us to this kind of practice! -Harm _____ De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Rob Eamon Envoyé : mercredi 7 janvier 2009 22:34 À : [email protected] Objet : [service-orientated-architecture] Re: SOA is Dead Awesome. I agree that "SOA is dead" seems like tabloid-like ploy to drive traffic. The topic is not entirely without merit but as you point out, the content doesn't seem to support the headline. -Rob --- In service-orientated- <mailto:service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com> [email protected], David Chappell <david.chapp...@...> wrote: > > After rereading the post, I would say that the title of the blog is contentious - but the thoughts presented towards the 2nd half of the article are not all that outrageous. > The start of the article is a nice read, but without facts to back it up. I would actually think during recessionary trends, organizations would prefer to cut costs and the architecture until recently known as SOA would be a the solution to bring down application development and maintenance costs through increased reusability. > > Towards the middle of the article, it starts to sing a common tune - "the requirement for service-oriented architecture is stronger than ever." So, in effect, you believe in the promise of services, but think its time to cut through the hype and define SOA as not just a software/technology, but a mindset which requires shift at organizational level as well. Well put, and I don't think you would find any disagreement. > So where is the dead part? > Dave
