_____
De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Anne Thomas Manes Envoyé : jeudi 8 janvier 2009 20:18 À : [email protected] Objet : Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: SOA is Dead 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. [HS] Of course, I understood all that, but thats not the point. Yes -- it is a bit sensational, but sensationalism is required to get attention. [HS] This is what I called bad journalism and Rob called a tabloid-like ploy. IMO, it will do you a disservice: at first, people may be intrigued by the headline, but when they find out its mostly a tempest in a glass of water, it will leave them with a bad feeling. In other words, sensationalism tends to backfire: you may get some attention now, but maybe much less next time. 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. [HS] Sounds pretty weird: how can you eradicate the term SOA if both SO and A are still important? Apart from that, various reactions show that SOA hasnt become a bad word for everybody. So, my guess is that, despite the overhype and ambiguity, and whether you like it or not, well have to live with this term for quite a while 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. [HS] Agreed. Anne On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Harm Smit < <mailto:harm.smit%40neuf.fr> [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 : service-orientated- <mailto:service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com> [email protected] > [mailto:service-orientated- <mailto:service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com> [email protected]] De la part de Rob > Eamon > Envoyé : mercredi 7 janvier 2009 22:34 > À : service-orientated- <mailto:service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com> [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 > >
