Harm, I think you misunderstood the intent of the title and the message.
The title is a play on the phrase, "The King is Dead; Long Live the King". It indicates a transition, but the core political structure pretty much remains the same. Yes -- it is a bit sensational, but sensationalism is required to get attention. My point, which is explicitly stated in the message, is that the business folks that control the purse strings will not fund projects labeled "SOA" in 2009. The term "SOA" has become a bad word, and it must be removed from our vocabulary. Nonetheless, service-orientation is still important. But IT groups must realize that SOA is not something they can sell in 2009. In fact, the entire idea of selling an architectural concept to business people has always been a really bad idea. If you want to get funding in 2009, you need to sell something that resonates with the business people. What you need to sell are the *services* that they will find valuable. Anne On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Harm Smit <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 hadn't 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 [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 > >
