Steve Jones wrote: >SOA doesn't mean that it can't be crap in the same was a WOA doesn't > mean it can't be crap. You can have the best service design in the > world but pick the wrong technology to implement it then its going to > be a rubbish SOA. > > If the services are poorly designed and not representative of the > business or problem context then it would (for me) not be SOA. If > they are however well designed and representative of the business then > it is (IMO) SOA. > > The SOD (Service Oriented Delivery) could be complete bobbins but the > Architecture would still be SOA.
I'm still a little amazed how much focus there is on one version of the SOA. If there is not a quality management system and a lifecycle management perspective, then it's not much of an SOA either is it? The whole point of SOA is to help manage change more effectively, including improvements that may feel like continual integration or development I think. Gregg Wonderly
