--- In [email protected], "Anne Thomas Manes" <atma...@...> wrote: > > 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. >
This is just commercial common sense: sell people something they are convinced will prove of value to them and their company (not to mention their career). No sensible person will buy a vague concept for the sake of it; this is particularly difficult in the case of SOA as no-one seems to be able to agree on a sensible definition which is understandable by a non-techy. As always when trying to sell something, put yourself behind the target party's eyeballs. This is the thinking by my posing my Challenge of Explanation, which I notice only one person has taken up.... Thank you, Rob! Mind you I am not convinced that there are yet any comprehensive answers about how you incorporate incumbent applications into a SOA structure, short of persuading the software vendors to break their products down into services with appropriate interfaces. Gervas > Anne > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Harm Smit <harm.s...@...> 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.chappell@> 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 > > > > >
