+1
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 18, 2009, at 9:23 AM, Steve Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
2009/1/18 Gregg Wonderly <[email protected]>:
> 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.
These apply however to EVERY IT system. If there isn't a QMS or LM
for a 1980s COBOL system then you are in quite a bit of trouble as
well. SOA doesn't magically make everyone more professional, it can
make certain things easier and simpler but the old good practices are
still good practices.
A great SOA is one where the Architecture is service oriented, the
organisation is aligned to the services the teams are delivering
services not applications and where change is managed at the service
level and where all of this is aligned to the value that the service
delivers. That is pretty much as good as it gets. But you don't have
to do EVERYTHING in order to be "doing" SOA.
SOA is about the architecture, its a good start but it isn't the end.
People can have a great architecture and still fail because of the way
they chose to implement it.
Steve
>
> Gregg Wonderly
>
