+1. Spot on, Rob. - Anne
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Rob Eamon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Alexander Johannesen > <alexander.johanne...@...> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 03:50, Rob Eamon <rea...@...> wrote: >> > I would offer this addition: don't pursue an "SOA initiative." >> > That, IMO, is the completely wrong thing upon which to focus. >> >> Completely wrong, eh? :) Well, lots of organisations find out that >> their current infra-structure is becoming rather inflexible and jump >> on SOA (or what they perceive as SOA) as a means to fix it. > > Perhaps the thing to focus upon in this case is making the infrastructure > more flexible. Or even better, focus on specific business aspects that need > particular flexibilities. SO principles might help with that, but the > primary focus should be on the original goal, not on the style of the > approach. > >> I'd say, good for them! Even with a bad lessons learnt they'd still >> get some positive outcomes from it; architecture in general, web- >> services (or equivalent) as a wrapper, service-minded thinking, etc. > > How about business-focused thinking? ;-) > >> > Using SO principles might help structure a system to meet >> > particular goals but SOA is not the end-game. >> >> For companies which are at their wits end, I'd say it just might be, >> and that it might not even be a wrong thing to pursue either. >> Playing it as an end-game is an opportunity for the organisation to >> take it further once their brains click around the concepts. > > It's the resulting systems that fulfill particular business needs that are > the important result, not the style of the architecture. Focusing on the > architectural style as the end-game risks missing the business need--which > is what prompted SO principles in the first place. Eyes need to be on the > business aspects. SO is but a tool in the belt. > >> > It is one particular way to organize the components of an >> > (probably enterprise) architecture. >> >> Well, not so much a way to organize as it is a way to *think* about >> organizing it. :) > > A way of thinking is part of it, sure, but to what end? So that we can say > the system is SO? "We lost $20 million last quarter but our systems were > SO!" :-) > > IMO, it would be better that the system meets the business objectives and > exhibits the characteristics set out by the arhitecture goals and principles > (which were to be driven by business needs). If the architecture and > resulting system(s) are SO, spiffy. If not, no biggie--since the end-game is > business results. > > I get what you're saying, that focusing on SOA as an intermediate toll-gate > to something better can be useful. And that by "doing SOA" correctly, one > will (most likely) be business focused. But I'm not so sure. Look at how > many zero in on just doing web services and how many equate doing SOA with > installing and using an ESB. SO as the intermediate goal carries a risk of > forgetting that the real goal lies beyond that. > > The drum being beat by many in this forum is "focus on the business" and on > addressing business objectives and needs. Being SO is seen as a good way to > architect systems, but we keep having to remind ourselves and others to > focus on the business and the larger issues. To not get mired in "SOA" which > I think is one of reasons for Anne's "SOA is dead" theme. (Please correct me > if wrong Anne.) > > This might be a poor analogy but perhaps it illustrates my point behind > focusing on what is driving the creation/modification of an architecture vs. > its style. If I ask for a Victorian-style house, it is important that it be > Victorian, but it is infinitely more important that it be a house. A > Victorian style barn might please the Victorian society, Victorian > proponents and admirers, but I'll be homeless. > > -Rob > >
