Comments on: SOA 2.0? Stop the madness http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2006/05/soa-20-stop-madness.html Thoughts on BPM, collaboration, analytics and information management, technology trends and the business value of IT Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:21:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Neil Ward-Dutton http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2006/05/soa-20-stop-madness.html/comment-page-1#comment-125 Neil Ward-Dutton Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:25:00 +0000 http://mwdtemp.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/soa-2-0-stop-the-madness/#comment-125 OK... it's not just about the label, Anonymous, although that is deeply silly as - how can you version an architectural approach to IT?<br/><br/>It's also that, from my point of view and many other peoples' points of view, "classic SOA" (as you put it) isn't particular to *any* style of communication - the key words are "architecture" and "service". SOA can be pursued using sync, async, RPC, messaging, publish-subscribe, whatever. There's no reason why you couldn't implement SOA using RSS, in my mind. So it doesn't make sense, to me, to separate an event-based approach to communication from request-reply, and see these as different things.<br/><br/>As I mentioned in the post I think a much better focus for thinking about SOA is to be found in the OASIS SOA Adoption Blueprints TC. OK… it’s not just about the label, Anonymous, although that is deeply silly as – how can you version an architectural approach to IT?

It’s also that, from my point of view and many other peoples’ points of view, “classic SOA” (as you put it) isn’t particular to *any* style of communication – the key words are “architecture” and “service”. SOA can be pursued using sync, async, RPC, messaging, publish-subscribe, whatever. There’s no reason why you couldn’t implement SOA using RSS, in my mind. So it doesn’t make sense, to me, to separate an event-based approach to communication from request-reply, and see these as different things.

As I mentioned in the post I think a much better focus for thinking about SOA is to be found in the OASIS SOA Adoption Blueprints TC.

]]> By: Neil Ward-Dutton http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2006/05/soa-20-stop-madness.html/comment-page-1#comment-131 Neil Ward-Dutton Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:25:00 +0000 http://mwdtemp.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/soa-2-0-stop-the-madness/#comment-131 OK... it's not just about the label, Anonymous, although that is deeply silly as - how can you version an architectural approach to IT?<br/><br/>It's also that, from my point of view and many other peoples' points of view, "classic SOA" (as you put it) isn't particular to *any* style of communication - the key words are "architecture" and "service". SOA can be pursued using sync, async, RPC, messaging, publish-subscribe, whatever. There's no reason why you couldn't implement SOA using RSS, in my mind. So it doesn't make sense, to me, to separate an event-based approach to communication from request-reply, and see these as different things.<br/><br/>As I mentioned in the post I think a much better focus for thinking about SOA is to be found in the OASIS SOA Adoption Blueprints TC. OK… it’s not just about the label, Anonymous, although that is deeply silly as – how can you version an architectural approach to IT?

It’s also that, from my point of view and many other peoples’ points of view, “classic SOA” (as you put it) isn’t particular to *any* style of communication – the key words are “architecture” and “service”. SOA can be pursued using sync, async, RPC, messaging, publish-subscribe, whatever. There’s no reason why you couldn’t implement SOA using RSS, in my mind. So it doesn’t make sense, to me, to separate an event-based approach to communication from request-reply, and see these as different things.

As I mentioned in the post I think a much better focus for thinking about SOA is to be found in the OASIS SOA Adoption Blueprints TC.

]]> By: Neil Ward-Dutton http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2006/05/soa-20-stop-madness.html/comment-page-1#comment-133 Neil Ward-Dutton Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:25:00 +0000 http://mwdtemp.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/soa-2-0-stop-the-madness/#comment-133 OK... it's not just about the label, Anonymous, although that is deeply silly as - how can you version an architectural approach to IT?<br/><br/>It's also that, from my point of view and many other peoples' points of view, "classic SOA" (as you put it) isn't particular to *any* style of communication - the key words are "architecture" and "service". SOA can be pursued using sync, async, RPC, messaging, publish-subscribe, whatever. There's no reason why you couldn't implement SOA using RSS, in my mind. So it doesn't make sense, to me, to separate an event-based approach to communication from request-reply, and see these as different things.<br/><br/>As I mentioned in the post I think a much better focus for thinking about SOA is to be found in the OASIS SOA Adoption Blueprints TC. OK… it’s not just about the label, Anonymous, although that is deeply silly as – how can you version an architectural approach to IT?

It’s also that, from my point of view and many other peoples’ points of view, “classic SOA” (as you put it) isn’t particular to *any* style of communication – the key words are “architecture” and “service”. SOA can be pursued using sync, async, RPC, messaging, publish-subscribe, whatever. There’s no reason why you couldn’t implement SOA using RSS, in my mind. So it doesn’t make sense, to me, to separate an event-based approach to communication from request-reply, and see these as different things.

As I mentioned in the post I think a much better focus for thinking about SOA is to be found in the OASIS SOA Adoption Blueprints TC.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2006/05/soa-20-stop-madness.html/comment-page-1#comment-124 Anonymous Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:08:00 +0000 http://mwdtemp.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/soa-2-0-stop-the-madness/#comment-124 Nobody seems to disagree that events support is a logical extension to classic SOA, which is mostly based on a request/reply (not necessarily synchronous) style of implementing distributed applications. <br/><br/>So the point is that SOA 2.0 is not a good way to indicate this extension. Right?<br/><br/>Not arguing. Sorry if I look naive. Just trying to understand ... Nobody seems to disagree that events support is a logical extension to classic SOA, which is mostly based on a request/reply (not necessarily synchronous) style of implementing distributed applications.

So the point is that SOA 2.0 is not a good way to indicate this extension. Right?

Not arguing. Sorry if I look naive. Just trying to understand …

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2006/05/soa-20-stop-madness.html/comment-page-1#comment-129 Anonymous Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:08:00 +0000 http://mwdtemp.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/soa-2-0-stop-the-madness/#comment-129 Nobody seems to disagree that events support is a logical extension to classic SOA, which is mostly based on a request/reply (not necessarily synchronous) style of implementing distributed applications. <br/><br/>So the point is that SOA 2.0 is not a good way to indicate this extension. Right?<br/><br/>Not arguing. Sorry if I look naive. Just trying to understand ... Nobody seems to disagree that events support is a logical extension to classic SOA, which is mostly based on a request/reply (not necessarily synchronous) style of implementing distributed applications.

So the point is that SOA 2.0 is not a good way to indicate this extension. Right?

Not arguing. Sorry if I look naive. Just trying to understand …

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2006/05/soa-20-stop-madness.html/comment-page-1#comment-132 Anonymous Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:08:00 +0000 http://mwdtemp.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/soa-2-0-stop-the-madness/#comment-132 Nobody seems to disagree that events support is a logical extension to classic SOA, which is mostly based on a request/reply (not necessarily synchronous) style of implementing distributed applications. <br/><br/>So the point is that SOA 2.0 is not a good way to indicate this extension. Right?<br/><br/>Not arguing. Sorry if I look naive. Just trying to understand ... Nobody seems to disagree that events support is a logical extension to classic SOA, which is mostly based on a request/reply (not necessarily synchronous) style of implementing distributed applications.

So the point is that SOA 2.0 is not a good way to indicate this extension. Right?

Not arguing. Sorry if I look naive. Just trying to understand …

]]> By: Neil Ward-Dutton http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2006/05/soa-20-stop-madness.html/comment-page-1#comment-123 Neil Ward-Dutton Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:44:00 +0000 http://mwdtemp.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/soa-2-0-stop-the-madness/#comment-123 Anonymous, take a look again at the post here - it explains everything about why the idea of SOA 2.0 is counterproductive, opportunistic and self-serving.<br/><br/>Also see the 430+ names on the SOA 2.0 petition. There's quite a lot of people who feel the same as me! Anonymous, take a look again at the post here – it explains everything about why the idea of SOA 2.0 is counterproductive, opportunistic and self-serving.

Also see the 430+ names on the SOA 2.0 petition. There’s quite a lot of people who feel the same as me!

]]> By: Neil Ward-Dutton http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2006/05/soa-20-stop-madness.html/comment-page-1#comment-127 Neil Ward-Dutton Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:44:00 +0000 http://mwdtemp.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/soa-2-0-stop-the-madness/#comment-127 Anonymous, take a look again at the post here - it explains everything about why the idea of SOA 2.0 is counterproductive, opportunistic and self-serving.<br/><br/>Also see the 430+ names on the SOA 2.0 petition. There's quite a lot of people who feel the same as me! Anonymous, take a look again at the post here – it explains everything about why the idea of SOA 2.0 is counterproductive, opportunistic and self-serving.

Also see the 430+ names on the SOA 2.0 petition. There’s quite a lot of people who feel the same as me!

]]> By: Neil Ward-Dutton http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2006/05/soa-20-stop-madness.html/comment-page-1#comment-130 Neil Ward-Dutton Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:44:00 +0000 http://mwdtemp.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/soa-2-0-stop-the-madness/#comment-130 Anonymous, take a look again at the post here - it explains everything about why the idea of SOA 2.0 is counterproductive, opportunistic and self-serving.<br/><br/>Also see the 430+ names on the SOA 2.0 petition. There's quite a lot of people who feel the same as me! Anonymous, take a look again at the post here – it explains everything about why the idea of SOA 2.0 is counterproductive, opportunistic and self-serving.

Also see the 430+ names on the SOA 2.0 petition. There’s quite a lot of people who feel the same as me!

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2006/05/soa-20-stop-madness.html/comment-page-1#comment-122 Anonymous Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:00:00 +0000 http://mwdtemp.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/soa-2-0-stop-the-madness/#comment-122 Not clear to me what's wrong with SOA 2.0. Is it the name or is there something conceptually flawed? As far as I can tell SOA 2.0 is about extending the classic client/server SOA with support for asynchronous events (publish and subscribe etc.). Why is this bad? Not clear to me what’s wrong with SOA 2.0. Is it the name or is there something conceptually flawed? As far as I can tell SOA 2.0 is about extending the classic client/server SOA with support for asynchronous events (publish and subscribe etc.). Why is this bad?

]]>