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

Re: [service-orientated-architecture] SOA-compliant

Expand Messages
  • Eric Newcomer
    We at IONA would not claim SOA compliance since such a thing doesn t exist and probably can t or at least shouldn t. SOA is a style of design, or an approach
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      We at IONA would not claim "SOA compliance" since such a thing doesn't exist and probably can't or at least shouldn't.

      SOA is a style of design, or an approach to IT.  It's not something with which any particular product can be compliant since any number of technologies can be (and have been) successfully used to imlpement an SOA.  That means it's how you use the product, not the product or technology itself, that needs to be SOA compliant.
       
      Eric
      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@...>
      To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:11:18 AM
      Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] SOA-compliant

      And here in lies the problem....

      I've done this on several occasions with product teams who make the valid point

      "Yes we know that it isn't, but the analysts are saying things must be SOA and customers are looking for SOA, so we say we have SOA and people buy it"

      No-one ever advertises "Pretty much like our old product, we've just put three more blades on it to see if you will buy the same stuff again" or "gets clothes as white as everyone elses product" and certainly not "Its a creme for your face, it might help it might not, we just use phrases like fructose and aqua so you won't realise its just sugar and water".

      That said I'd argue that it should be possible to have a standard of both architectureal and technical compliance to SOA principles, rather than the current raft which is just right-click expose web service on the existing code base.

      Steve


      On 27/06/07, JP Morgenthal <morgenthaljp@ avorcor.com> wrote:

      Now that we're all in agreement, who will carry the message back to the pathetic marketing staffs within these vendors?


      :-)
      ____________ _________ _________ ____
      JP Morgenthal
      President & CEO
      Avorcor, Inc.
      46440 Benedict Drive
      Suite 103
      Sterling, VA 20164
      (703) 649-0829 x 101: Office
      (703) 554-5301 : Cell
      ____________ _________ _________ ____

      Confidential: The information in this e-mail message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient of this message or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient(s) , be hereby notified that you have received this message in error. Any review, dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your system(s).

       



      On Jun 27, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Mark D. Carlson wrote:


      For this term to have meaning one would have to ask "Compliant according to what defined standard or specification? ".  If I assert that a Web Service is compliant with WS-I Basic Profile 1.0, that assertion can be tested either manually by reviewing its characteristics against the published rules or in an automated fashion using one or more tools.  In short, my compliance claim could be verified. 

       

      This vendor's claim of "SOA compliance" can neither be proved nor disproved in absence of some finite set of compliance tests or at least a widely agreed upon specific definition.  Their claim is like claiming "object orientation compliant" or "distributed computing compliant" or "client server compliant".  It is a marketing construct and useless for any real evaluation of their product.

      Thanks,

      Mark

       

      From: service-orientated- architecture@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:service-orientated-architecture@ yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Teresa Jones
      Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:30 AM
      To: service-orientated-architecture@ yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [service-orientated -architecture] SOA-compliant

       

      I'm currently looking at a CRM product that the vendor claims is
      'SOA-compliant' yet it is also claimed to be an n-tier architecture. A
      quick search on the concept of SOA-compliance brought up this article:-
      http://blogs.ittoolbox. com/eai/engineering/archives/my-soa-compliant -toaster-and-cell- phone-7362
      which was quite fun!
      I suspect that the CRM vendor concerned actually means that you can
      integrate with it using web services....
      Question for the group - can an application be regarded as
      SOA-compliant? Or is that rather a meaningless phrase?
      thanks
      Teresa







      Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
    • Mark Little
      +1
      Message 2 of 20 , Jul 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        +1


        On 30 Jun 2007, at 19:47, Eric Newcomer wrote:


        We at IONA would not claim "SOA compliance" since such a thing doesn't exist and probably can't or at least shouldn't.

        SOA is a style of design, or an approach to IT.  It's not something with which any particular product can be compliant since any number of technologies can be (and have been) successfully used to imlpement an SOA.  That means it's how you use the product, not the product or technology itself, that needs to be SOA compliant.
         
        Eric
        ----- Original Message ----
        From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@gmail.com>
        To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:11:18 AM
        Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] SOA-compliant

        And here in lies the problem....

        I've done this on several occasions with product teams who make the valid point

        "Yes we know that it isn't, but the analysts are saying things must be SOA and customers are looking for SOA, so we say we have SOA and people buy it"

        No-one ever advertises "Pretty much like our old product, we've just put three more blades on it to see if you will buy the same stuff again" or "gets clothes as white as everyone elses product" and certainly not "Its a creme for your face, it might help it might not, we just use phrases like fructose and aqua so you won't realise its just sugar and water".

        That said I'd argue that it should be possible to have a standard of both architectureal and technical compliance to SOA principles, rather than the current raft which is just right-click expose web service on the existing code base.

        Steve


        On 27/06/07, JP Morgenthal <morgenthaljp@ avorcor.com> wrote:

        Now that we're all in agreement, who will carry the message back to the pathetic marketing staffs within these vendors?


        :-)
        ____________ _________ _________ ____
        JP Morgenthal
        President & CEO
        Avorcor, Inc.
        46440 Benedict Drive
        Suite 103
        Sterling, VA 20164
        (703) 649-0829 x 101: Office
        (703) 554-5301 : Cell
        ____________ _________ _________ ____

        Confidential: The information in this e-mail message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient of this message or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient(s) , be hereby notified that you have received this message in error. Any review, dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your system(s).

         


        On Jun 27, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Mark D. Carlson wrote:


        For this term to have meaning one would have to ask "Compliant according to what defined standard or specification? ".  If I assert that a Web Service is compliant with WS-I Basic Profile 1.0, that assertion can be tested either manually by reviewing its characteristics against the published rules or in an automated fashion using one or more tools.  In short, my compliance claim could be verified. 

         

        This vendor's claim of "SOA compliance" can neither be proved nor disproved in absence of some finite set of compliance tests or at least a widely agreed upon specific definition.  Their claim is like claiming "object orientation compliant" or "distributed computing compliant" or "client server compliant".  It is a marketing construct and useless for any real evaluation of their product.

        Thanks,

        Mark

         

        From: service-orientated- architecture@yahoogroups.com [mailto:service-orientated-architecture@ yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Teresa Jones
        Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:30 AM
        To: service-orientated-architecture@ yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [service-orientated -architecture] SOA-compliant

         

        I'm currently looking at a CRM product that the vendor claims is
        'SOA-compliant' yet it is also claimed to be an n-tier architecture. A
        quick search on the concept of SOA-compliance brought up this article:-
        http://blogs.ittoolbox. com/eai/engineering/archives/my-soa-compliant -toaster-and-cell- phone-7362
        which was quite fun!
        I suspect that the CRM vendor concerned actually means that you can
        integrate with it using web services....
        Question for the group - can an application be regarded as
        SOA-compliant? Or is that rather a meaningless phrase?
        thanks
        Teresa








        Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.


      • Rob Eamon
        I believe a software system can have service-oriented characteristics, regardless of how it is used. One can point to a particular attribute of a software
        Message 3 of 20 , Jul 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          I believe a software system can have service-oriented
          characteristics, regardless of how it is used. One can point to a
          particular attribute of a software system and classify it as service-
          oriented. A software system design can be guided/constrained by SOA
          principles, and can thus be characterized as service-oriented.

          This characterization can be technology agnostic. It doesn't matter
          if WS-* or JMS or ESB, et. al. have been used or not within the
          software system. It can still have service-oriented characteristics.

          I do agree that "SOA compliance" is highly suspect (and primarily a
          marketing device), since such a notion is highly dependent on the
          definition of SOA and to date there are no "compliance" test suites
          defined (as many have pointed out).

          -Rob

          --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, Eric Newcomer
          <e_newcomer@...> wrote:
          >
          > We at IONA would not claim "SOA compliance" since such a thing
          doesn't exist and probably can't or at least shouldn't.
          >
          > SOA is a style of design, or an approach to IT. It's not something
          > with which any particular product can be compliant since any number
          > of technologies can be (and have been) successfully used to
          > imlpement an SOA. That means it's how you use the product, not the
          > product or technology itself, that needs to be SOA compliant.
          >
          > Eric
        • Jerry Zhu
          the evolution of software engineering is ever increase of levels of abstraction from machine code to assembly to functional orientation to OO to SO to BP
          Message 4 of 20 , Jul 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            the evolution of software engineering is ever increase
            of levels of abstraction from machine code to assembly
            to functional orientation to OO to SO to BP
            orientation. Each level of abstraction corresponds to
            a version of software technology correlated to a suite
            of software platforms.

            If we call object technology, then we should also call
            Service technology. When we apply technology to solve
            real world problems, we define business capabilities
            and enable them with IT capabilities, called
            infrastrucure capabilities. The higher level
            abstraction the more infrastracture capabilities.

            SOA compliance means software platforms of Service
            technology meet the standards of SOA infrastructure
            capabilities which we have talked a lot before.

            Jerry Zhu


            > On 30 Jun 2007, at 19:47, Eric Newcomer wrote:
            >
            >
            > We at IONA would not claim "SOA compliance" since
            > such a thing doesn't exist and probably can't or at
            > least shouldn't.
            > >
            > SOA is a style of design, or an approach to IT.
            > It's not something
            > with which any particular product can be compliant
            > since any number of technologies can be (and have
            > been) successfully used to
            > imlpement an SOA. That means it's how you use the
            > product, not the product or technology itself,
            > that needs to be SOA compliant.
            >
            > Eric
            > > ----- Original Message ----
            > > From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@...>
            > > To:
            > service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com
            > > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:11:18 AM
            > > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture]
            > SOA-compliant
            > >
            > > And here in lies the problem....
            > >
            > > I've done this on several occasions with product
            > teams who make the
            > > valid point
            > >
            > > "Yes we know that it isn't, but the analysts are
            > saying things must
            > > be SOA and customers are looking for SOA, so we
            > say we have SOA and
            > > people buy it"
            > >
            > > No-one ever advertises "Pretty much like our old
            > product, we've
            > > just put three more blades on it to see if you
            > will buy the same
            > > stuff again" or "gets clothes as white as everyone
            > elses product"
            > > and certainly not "Its a creme for your face, it
            > might help it
            > > might not, we just use phrases like fructose and
            > aqua so you won't
            > > realise its just sugar and water".
            > >
            > > That said I'd argue that it should be possible to
            > have a standard
            > > of both architectureal and technical compliance to
            > SOA principles,
            > > rather than the current raft which is just
            > right-click expose web
            > > service on the existing code base.
            > >
            > > Steve
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > On 27/06/07, JP Morgenthal <morgenthaljp@
            > avorcor.com> wrote:
            > > Now that we're all in agreement, who will carry
            > the message back to
            > > the pathetic marketing staffs within these
            > vendors?
            > >
            > >
            > > :-)
            > > ____________ _________ _________ ____
            > > JP Morgenthal
            > > President & CEO
            > > Avorcor, Inc.
            > > 46440 Benedict Drive
            > > Suite 103
            > > Sterling, VA 20164
            > > (703) 649-0829 x 101: Office
            > > (703) 554-5301 : Cell
            > > morgenthaljp@ avorcor.com
            > > ____________ _________ _________ ____
            > >
            > > Confidential: The information in this e-mail
            > message (including any
            > > attachments) is intended only for the use of the
            > recipient(s) named
            > > above and as such is privileged and confidential.
            > If you are not an
            > > intended recipient of this message or an agent
            > responsible for
            > > delivering it to the intended recipient(s) , be
            > hereby notified
            > > that you have received this message in error. Any
            > review,
            > > dissemination, distribution, printing or copying
            > of this message is
            > > strictly prohibited. If you believe you have
            > received this message
            > > in error, please notify the sender immediately by
            > return e-mail and
            > > delete this message from your system(s).
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > On Jun 27, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Mark D. Carlson
            > wrote:
            > >
            > >>
            > >> For this term to have meaning one would have to
            > ask "Compliant
            > >> according to what defined standard or
            > specification? ". If I
            > >> assert that a Web Service is compliant with WS-I
            > Basic Profile
            > >> 1.0, that assertion can be tested either manually
            > by reviewing its
            > >> characteristics against the published rules or in
            > an automated
            > >> fashion using one or more tools. In short, my
            > compliance claim
            > >> could be verified.
            > >>
            > >>
            > >> This vendor's claim of "SOA compliance" can
            > neither be proved nor
            > >> disproved in absence of some finite set of
            > compliance tests or at
            > >> least a widely agreed upon specific definition.
            > Their claim is
            > >> like claiming "object orientation compliant" or
            > "distributed
            > >> computing compliant" or "client server
            > compliant". It is a
            > >> marketing construct and useless for any real
            > evaluation of their
            > >> product.
            > >>
            > >> Thanks,
            > >>
            > >> Mark
            > >>
            > >>
            > >> From: service-orientated-
            > architecture@yahoogroups.com
            > >> [mailto:service-orientated-architecture@
            > yahoogroups.com] On
            > >> Behalf Of Teresa Jones
            > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:30 AM
            > >> To: service-orientated-architecture@
            > yahoogroups.com
            > >> Subject: [service-orientated -architecture]
            > SOA-compliant
            > >>
            > >>
            > >> I'm currently looking at a CRM product that the
            > vendor claims is
            > >> 'SOA-compliant' yet it is also claimed to be an
            > n-tier
            > >> architecture. A
            > >> quick search on the concept of SOA-compliance
            > brought up this
            > >> article:-
            > >> http://blogs.ittoolbox
            > com/eai/engineering/archives/my-soa-
            > >> compliant -toaster-and-cell- phone-7362
            > >> which was quite fun!
            > >> I suspect that the CRM vendor concerned actually
            > means that you can
            > >> integrate with it using web services....
            > >> Question for the group - can an application be
            > regarded as
            > >> SOA-compliant? Or is that rather a meaningless
            > phrase?
            > >> thanks
            > >> Teresa
            > >>
            > >>
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you
            > sell.
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
          • Steve Jones
            Now all we need is some of the let us say more marketing lead organisations out there to follow suit :) What I d like to see, not so much from infrastructure
            Message 5 of 20 , Jul 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Now all we need is some of the let us say more "marketing lead" organisations out there to follow suit :)

              What I'd like to see, not so much from infrastructure (Middleware et al) vendors but from package and biz solutions vendors, is a clear Service Architecture for a product, rather than a list of end-points.

              Steve


              On 02/07/07, Mark Little <nmcl2001@...> wrote:

              +1



              On 30 Jun 2007, at 19:47, Eric Newcomer wrote:


              We at IONA would not claim "SOA compliance" since such a thing doesn't exist and probably can't or at least shouldn't.

              SOA is a style of design, or an approach to IT.  It's not something with which any particular product can be compliant since any number of technologies can be (and have been) successfully used to imlpement an SOA.  That means it's how you use the product, not the product or technology itself, that needs to be SOA compliant.
               
              Eric
              ----- Original Message ----
              From: Steve Jones < jones.steveg@gmail.com>
              To: service-orientated-architecture@ yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:11:18 AM
              Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] SOA-compliant

              And here in lies the problem....

              I've done this on several occasions with product teams who make the valid point

              "Yes we know that it isn't, but the analysts are saying things must be SOA and customers are looking for SOA, so we say we have SOA and people buy it"

              No-one ever advertises "Pretty much like our old product, we've just put three more blades on it to see if you will buy the same stuff again" or "gets clothes as white as everyone elses product" and certainly not "Its a creme for your face, it might help it might not, we just use phrases like fructose and aqua so you won't realise its just sugar and water".

              That said I'd argue that it should be possible to have a standard of both architectureal and technical compliance to SOA principles, rather than the current raft which is just right-click expose web service on the existing code base.

              Steve


              On 27/06/07, JP Morgenthal < morgenthaljp@ avorcor.com> wrote:

              Now that we're all in agreement, who will carry the message back to the pathetic marketing staffs within these vendors?


              :-)
              ____________ _________ _________ ____
              JP Morgenthal
              President & CEO
              Avorcor, Inc.
              46440 Benedict Drive
              Suite 103
              Sterling, VA 20164
              (703) 649-0829 x 101: Office
              (703) 554-5301 : Cell
              ____________ _________ _________ ____

              Confidential: The information in this e-mail message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient of this message or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient(s) , be hereby notified that you have received this message in error. Any review, dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your system(s).

               


              On Jun 27, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Mark D. Carlson wrote:


              For this term to have meaning one would have to ask "Compliant according to what defined standard or specification? ".  If I assert that a Web Service is compliant with WS-I Basic Profile 1.0, that assertion can be tested either manually by reviewing its characteristics against the published rules or in an automated fashion using one or more tools.  In short, my compliance claim could be verified. 

               

              This vendor's claim of "SOA compliance" can neither be proved nor disproved in absence of some finite set of compliance tests or at least a widely agreed upon specific definition.  Their claim is like claiming "object orientation compliant" or "distributed computing compliant" or "client server compliant".  It is a marketing construct and useless for any real evaluation of their product.

              Thanks,

              Mark

               

              From: service-orientated- architecture@yahoogroups. com [mailto:service- orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Teresa Jones
              Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:30 AM
              To: service-orientated-architecture@ yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [service-orientated -architecture] SOA-compliant

               

              I'm currently looking at a CRM product that the vendor claims is
              'SOA-compliant' yet it is also claimed to be an n-tier architecture. A
              quick search on the concept of SOA-compliance brought up this article:-
              http://blogs. ittoolbox. com/eai/engineering/archives/ my-soa-compliant -toaster- and-cell- phone-7362
              which was quite fun!
              I suspect that the CRM vendor concerned actually means that you can
              integrate with it using web services....
              Question for the group - can an application be regarded as
              SOA-compliant? Or is that rather a meaningless phrase?
              thanks
              Teresa








              Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.



            • Hitoshi Ozawa
              I agree with Eric on pure technical ground that it s difficult to claim SOA compliance , but as Steve pointed out, I think it s possible to have a gimmick
              Message 6 of 20 , Jul 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                I agree with Eric on "pure" technical ground that it's difficult to
                claim "SOA compliance", but as Steve pointed
                out, I think it's possible to have a gimmick to be "SOA compliance".

                There are many "SOA" project that end up just using web service for
                transmission and using BPMS
                to do "graphical programming". It's difficult to expect too much from
                just doing these as customers
                usually finds out soon enough, but I do have to say they are greatly
                helping to spread the acronym SOA.

                I think the question is, if it's better to promote even though the
                concept is not absolutely correct,
                or to have a limited promotion on the correct concept.

                H.Ozawa

                Eric Newcomer wrote:
                > We at IONA would not claim "SOA compliance" since such a thing doesn't exist and probably can't or at least shouldn't.
                >
                > SOA is a style of design, or an approach to IT. It's not something with which any particular product can be compliant since any number of technologies can be (and have been) successfully used to imlpement an SOA. That means it's how you use the product, not the product or technology itself, that needs to be SOA compliant.
                >
                > Eric
                >
                > ----- Original Message ----
                > From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@...>
                > To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:11:18 AM
                > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] SOA-compliant
                >
                > And here in lies the problem....
                >
                > I've done this on several occasions with product teams who make the valid point
                >
                > "Yes we know that it isn't, but the analysts are saying things must be SOA and customers are looking for SOA, so we say we have SOA and people buy it"
                >
                > No-one ever advertises "Pretty much like our old product, we've just put three more blades on it to see if you will buy the same stuff again" or "gets clothes as white as everyone elses product" and certainly not "Its a creme for your face, it might help it might not, we just use phrases like fructose and aqua so you won't realise its just sugar and water".
                >
                > That said I'd argue that it should be possible to have a standard of both architectureal and technical compliance to SOA principles, rather than the current raft which is just right-click expose web service on the existing code base.
                >
                > Steve
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.