No love for the folks that have been promoting both notions for some time? "SOA must die" and "Don't try to sell SOA" have been around a while.
-Rob --- In [email protected], Gervas Douglas <gervas.doug...@...> wrote: > > > <<SOA Obituary: Misinterpretations and Perceptive Enrichment > > Blogger: Anne Thomas Manes > <http://www.burtongroup.com/AboutUs/Bios/PrintBio.aspx?Id=94> > > 643 > <http://bgaps.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/200 8/07/09/643.jpg> > > > The cacophony generated by my SOA obituary > <http://apsblog.burtongroup.com/2009/01/soa-is-dead-long-live- services.html> > post exceeded my expectations. Obviously, I hit a nerve. > > Admittedly, the title was designed to draw a response. But I was still a > bit surprised by the number of people that misinterpreted my meaning. I > attribute the misunderstanding to the ambiguity of the term "SOA" > itself, which JP talks about in his post > <http://apsblog.burtongroup.com/2009/01/its-not-what-you-do-its- what-you-call-it-huh.html> > from earlier today. > > Misinterpretations of my meaning generally fall into four camps: > > * *"Big SOA" is dead, but "Little SOA" will survive: *This is by far > the most common misinterpretation: "Abandon your big vendor SOA > infrastructure, forget governance, and just build services as > needed with inexpensive and/or open source technologies." Now that > I think about it, I can see why people got this impression. My > "Long Live Services" message could easily lead you to this > misinterpretation. But I also said, "Incremental integration > projects will not lead to significantly reduced costs and > increased agility. If you want spectacular gains, then you need to > make a spectacular commitment to change." That should give you a > hint that I'm not recommending "Little SOA", which typically turns > into JABOWS > <http://www.cio-weblog.com/50226711/jabows_vs_soa.php>. A sound > infrastructure and an effective governance program will be > important going forward, and typically you need a "Big SOA" > initiative to get them in place. Bear in mind, though, that I'm > not saying you need to buy into a big vendor SOA stack to get > them. See my "SOA doesn't need to be expensive > <http://apsblog.burtongroup.com/2008/11/soa-doesnt-need-to-be- expensive.html>" > post. > * *REST will fix everything:* Many people took the "big" vs "little" > debate one step further and thought I was referring to SOAP and > WS-* when I said "SOA". I'm a bit surprised at this interpretation > given that I characterized the WS-* vs REST debate as "silly". > Shockingly enough, Jean-Jacques Dubray actually accused me of > being a RESTafarian in the InfoQ Debate > <http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/01/is-soa-dead> on the topic. Let > me be clear -- I am not talking about technology. REST will not > fix the problem. And the word "REST" is as bad as "SOA" even if it > doesn't have a negative connotation yet. > * *People should abandon all things previously known as SOA (or all > things related to architecture) and go back to monolithic > application design:* I can only assume that people who came away > with this misinterpretation didn't actually read the article. > * *"SOA" is a bad word, but doing SOA is good, so we need to come up > with a new name for "SOA":* This interpretation is close, but not > quite on the mark. Yes, SOA is a bad word. And yes, doing SOA is a > good thing. (And we need to keep doing it!) But no, we do not need > to come up with a new name. Emphatically not. > > Obviously I was too obtuse in my description of what comes next. So let > me explain: > > My real point is that we should not be talking about an architectural > concept that has no universally accepted definition and an indefensible > value proposition. Instead we should be talking about concrete things > (like services) and concrete architectural practices (like application > portfolio management) that deliver real value to the business. > > I am pleased to see that some people for the most part correctly > interpreted the article. The following posts add a bit of perceptive > enrichment to the conversation: > > * Joe McKendrick <http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/? p=1243> > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=1243> > * Mike Kavis > <http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/madgreek/did-soa-die-or-do-we- just-suck-at-architecture-29157> > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=1243> > * David Linthicum > <http://weblog.infoworld.com/realworldsoa/archives/2009/01/burton_grou p_as_1.html> > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=1243> > * Kyle Gabhart <http://soamatters.com/blog/search/SOA%20is% 20dead/> > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=1243> > * Piet Jan Baarda and Martin van den Berg > <http://eng.dya.info/Images/Recession_Proof_SO_V13a_Berg_Baarda_% 20Jan_2009_UK_tcm14-50724.pdf> (which > predates the SOA obituary) > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=1243> > * Brennan Spies <http://ajaxonomy.com/2009/soa/is-soa-dead> > * Stefano Pogliani > <http://tech.poglianis.net/2009/01/09/soa-is-dead-long-live- services/> > > * Dan Foody > <http://blogs.progress.com/soa_infrastructure/2009/01/goodbye- soa-we-hardly-knew-you.html> > > * Neil Ward-Dutton > <http://www.it- analysis.com/blogs/MWD/2009/1/schr_dinger_s_soa.html> > > I also commend Darryl Taft > <http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Web-Services-Web-20-and-SOA/SOA-Wanted- Dead-or-Alive/> > on his coverage of the ensuing debate. (The first two comments on the > article are definitely worth reading.) > > The award for the most entertaining response goes to Miko Matsumura > <http://www.soacenter.com/?p=172>, and Steve Jones gets special > recognition for his REST is Dead > <http://service-architecture.blogspot.com/2009/01/rest-is-dead-long- live-web.html> > parody. > > The award for the most offensive response goes to David Worthington > <http://www.sdtimes.com/blog/?tag=/soa> for comparing me to Ann Coulter > and claiming that I wrote the post purely for its sensationalistic value.>> >
