Good stuff. The article also implies that SOA is just about ways to "quickly create services, test services, deploy and manage the same in production." Nary a mention of step one: define an architecture. Then manage (or "govern" if one prefers that term) work efforts to that definition allowing for ways to change the definition as well.
-Rob --- In [email protected], Todd Biske <toddbi...@...> wrote: > > Groan. Whether intended or not, this article implies the "SOA > Governance is a tool you buy" thinking that vendors push. Everyone > has governance processes, and everyone has SOA management > processes, it's just a question of how effective they are in > contributing to (or inhibiting) IT's ability to deliver and operate > business solutions. If you are deficient in your SOA management > processes and those deficiencies can be traced to technology gaps, > go talk to a SOA management vendor. If your governance processes > are inefficient and can be improved through technology, go talk to > a registry/repository vendor. If they both are deficient and you > have limited dollars, do the math and figure out which will give > your company the most bang for the buck. That decision is company > specific, though. > > -tb > > Todd Biske > http://www.biske.com/blog/ > Sent from my iPhone
