Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > Hitoshi, > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:51 PM, htshozawa<[email protected] > <mailto:htshozawa%40gmail.com>> wrote: > > I'm not too keen on "service-orient the organization". Like other > disruptive > > technology, SOA allows users who were not able to create enterprise > > architecture to gradually create one. I don't think there isn't too much > > difference between a hole dug by a hydraulic excavator compared to a > > cable-operated excavator. There isn't too much difference now between steel > > from large steel mills compared to mini steel mills. I think it's the > > enablement that the key. > > +1. Technology doesn't matter. But I don't agree/understand your > assertion that SOA "allows" users to gradually create enterprise > architecture
Gradually existing functionality can be moved from application centric to service centric. For example, rather than running an application to see the current report, you schedule to see the current report in your mailbox at the beginning of the day, each day. Rewriting and rearchitecting doesn't happen overnight does it? > > IMHO, an organization with a strong leader and with > > enough budget, time, and talent will be able to achieve success and attain > > flexibility without SOA. > > An organization with strong leadership, time, and talent is likely to > be successful with SOA. (Budget is less important, although certainly > helpful.) What other architectural style would you recommend in place > of SOA to attain flexibility? I think this is the largest contributing factor to SOA failures. Workers are not free and time-to-learn doesn't grow on trees. Organizations with huge staffing overruns that would support parallel operation and rearchitecting of a completely new system are not common are they? Gregg Wonderly
