I thought this blog might stir up some controversy... Gervas
--- In [email protected], "Rob Eamon" <rea...@...> wrote: > > 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 > <toddbiske@> 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 >
