Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Wolfe on SOA 2.0

Expand Messages
  • Andrew S. Townley
    ... What bugs me about all this silliness is that people actually pay attention to it (and I guess I m guilty of this as well since I m writing this reply).
    Message 1 of 2 , May 29, 2006
      On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 15:32, Gervas Douglas wrote:
      > This was sent to me in an e-mail newsletter:
      > (I am sure that you will appreciate his remarks about analysts)
      > Gervas
      > ================================================================
      > Editor's Note: Version Control

      What bugs me about all this silliness is that people actually pay
      attention to it (and I guess I'm guilty of this as well since I'm
      writing this reply). However, what I think this latest hypefest does
      legitimately illustrate is how confused many people are about what SOA
      really is.

      Let's face it, most people in the world don't read this list, or any
      other of the open forums that have been trying to nail down some sort of
      definition framework for SOA. Unfortunately, as I think I mentioned
      here before, this isn't necessarily their fault--they're busy people,
      but it means that they get their version of the truth from industry
      magazines, blogs and industry analysts (if there is a "truth" here and
      not just context-dependent perceptions of the same "reality"). As the
      cropped article pointed out, there is just as broad a spectrum of ethics
      in analysts as there is in lawyers.

      I write this as someone who attended a conference on SOA for
      E-Government last week with people from major systems integrators,
      industry consortia (OMG, OASIS, etc.), vendors, government CXO's and
      some other really smart people (obviously not me :). However, one thing
      that was clear is that there's still a long way to go before we as an
      industry really understand what SOA is all about and how it can make a
      difference. I know there are a lot of people with varying degrees of
      this understanding on this list, but, as I said, not everyone who is
      being bombarded by SOA hype has time to consider the more fundamental
      issues as carefully as they should. If they did, this whole "SOA 2.0"
      thing wouldn't have even been suggested because there wouldn't have been
      enough people to believe it was worth talking about.

      While I agree with whoever said that things like "Web 2.0" (oops, will I
      get sued for that, Mr. O'Reilly? I used "Web 2.0" and "Conference" in
      the same email...), "WOA" and "AJAX" are useful as concepts so that
      people can understand they're really talking about the same thing, most
      of these aren't "words of making". The concepts existed, people just
      didn't agree what to call them. From the definition of SOA point of
      view, as Anne mentioned, it's an architectural style, so Mark's right
      saying versioning it is silly. However, we're (the Reach project) some
      of the people who have been doing event-driven SOA since 2001 because it
      makes sense, and it scales and, oh, yeah, it's loosely coupled. :)

      What I think would be nice is that some of the vendor-agnostic, core
      concepts that all of us agree on could be held up and used to deflect
      some of the hype momentum we're in right now. I realize this is
      somewhat amusing since on any given day here, there's wide and
      passionate disagreement about fundamentals, but, as participants in the
      industry who actually may know better, aren't we obligated to try and
      sort out some of this confusion? One, two, ten or 100 individuals won't
      do it, it needs to be a community effort.

      The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof from your system.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.