RSSDebate: Is SOA dead, or 'just resting?'
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published January 20, 2009, 9:06 PM
Must a programming methodology be a philosophy in order to survive the corporate boardroom? Maybe, but when the philosophy itself doesn't tread water for long, then what happens?
During the late 1980s and early '90s, during what was then my dual career as a software developer, I was something of a contrarian about a major methodology of my business: I believed, and actively advocated, that the design of programs should not tightly associate data with the code that utilizes it. I was told at the time I was not only rebutting a methodology, I was threatening a fundamental tenet of business, and some said I was against a way of life.
For most of this decade, I've ridden a wave of vindication. The Web-based development model has, as one of its founding principles, a so-called "loosely coupled" approach to data. Essentially, it says that a client in the outside world that requests data from a networked application need only understand the protocol for requesting that data, not the architecture of the server-side program generating it. There emerges an economy of sorts between the server and client, where the client is said to "consume" services provided by the server. This is the basic concept of service-oriented architecture (SOA), the successor to object-orientation among both evangelists and publishers.
But as with any methodology that's "in," the way you sell it to an audience is by equating it with some part of life in general. (Guilty as charged.) Witness if you will the various permutations of Moore's Law, which originally referred to a formula for the natural doubling of transistors in integrated circuits over two-year intervals, but which has since been applied to personal finance, clinical psychology, and at least once, the use of chili powder in Southwestern restaurant cuisine.
Here's an example of the application of SOA to the bigger lens of history -- whether it fits or not -- from a 2005 IBM Press book entitled Service-Oriented Architecture Compass:
"Corporations are built on the assumption of continuity; they focus on operations. On the other hand, capital markets are built on the assumption of discontinuity; their focus is on creation and destruction. The market encourages rapid and extensive creation and hence greater wealth building. The market is less tolerant than the corporation when underperforming over the long term. Some of the key reasons for failure are ignoring higher-value markets, the inability to address more technologically advanced competition, or competition from lower-cost sources...Today, enterprises must be more dynamic than ever to survive. They need new, evolved ways of handling the competition, and their IT infrastructures must support them as they face unique challenges they didn't have to face years ago. We believe SOA is the way that companies can develop IT infrastructures capable of supporting dynamic enterprises."
Recently, a debate has emerged in the software architecture community over whether SOA is dying -- or whether, more accurately, the "meta-concept" of SOA is dying away, leaving behind the actual architecture on which it's based.
The debate began with a blog post from Burton Group research director Anne Thomas Manes entitled, "SOA is Dead: Long Live Services." Here's an excerpt:
"Once thought to be the savior of IT, SOA instead turned into a great failed experiment -- at least for most organizations. SOA was supposed to reduce costs and increase agility on a massive scale. Except in rare situations, SOA has failed to deliver its promised benefits. After investing millions, IT systems are no better than before. In many organizations, things are worse: costs are higher, projects take longer, and systems are more fragile than ever. The people holding the purse strings have had enough. With the tight budgets of 2009, most organizations have cut funding for their SOA initiatives.
"It's time to accept reality. SOA fatigue has turned into SOA disillusionment. Business people no longer believe that SOA will deliver spectacular benefits. 'SOA' has become a bad word. It must be removed from our vocabulary."
Manes goes on to mourn the demise, as she puts it, of SOA; but the substitute she suggests for it in the public vernacular is a more disruptive application of the architecture's original ideal -- in other words, not so much service-oriented architecture as architecture that is service-oriented. Rather than applying millions in R&D resources studying the problem, she advises, information technology should be rebuilt from the ground up so that concrete services have discrete interfaces.
Next: A Microsoft architect performs an SOA "autopsy"...
Just reacting to the title, this question summarizes SOA's (and SaaS')entire history. ;-)
Score: 0
|The same can be said of your libertopianism as well. A great failure...
http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
I truly feel sorry for you. And I will continue saying this since you're entire life is a failure as well.
Score: 0
|Such a pathetic little fly.
So I guess Tool was right, you haven't a clue as to what your made-up term means, do you?
So tell us, Tweenboy, how the Republicans, who grew government at an unprecedented rate since Johnson's Great Society (you can Google that to learn what that was) conform to your made up definition of a Libertopian.
Or, IF you had one functioning braincell, you could go to the Cato Institute and read how they totally disagree with how Bush and the republicans ran things.
Either way, this should be fascinating to listen to your reaction to learning that you indeed haven't a clue as you cling to your socialist rant (which I suspect you don't have any understanding of either) and your victim mentality, which you elegantly embody.
And when all is said and done, do you have anything of substance to add here? I mean, at least you can let the rest of us in on the hot sources for news of Britny.
By the way, if you want to read something really funny, check out his insane link! Such grand generalization taken completely out of context is indeed hilarious. And ts presented in such a self-obsessed manner that even I disagree with whmever that idiot is criticizing. Its a shame Finkelstein only constructs out of context windmills based upon gross generalizations which do not represent the majority of folks, and the composite of which, I suspect represents no one.
No wonder this tweenie thinks he has run into something of substance. It reflects his own confused thinking - just as his use of the term he discovered does not apply to reality.
Now go help mommy by doing a few chores. Like taking out the trash. I am sure she would just as soon stop hearing you tell her how you have hooked your TV up to your computer and wishes that you would finally move out of the house.
Score: 0
|Translate: foxfart, "blah, blah, blah...."
Yes, you are constantly proving just how much of a retard you truly are, you and your "friend" The Tool.
http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
I see that you're still expressing your petty jealousy as well. It kills you that I may have a better system than you do. Like all loser libertopians you can't stand it when others do better than you do. That's why you hate America so much. You keep typing and say nothing. The essay I posted truly does fit you to a tee and you proved it yet again. I can still only feel pity for you and your kind. What a joke you really are. You are providing me with much entertainment value, the only value you are able to have.
One more thing. You keep leaving out the fact (Something libertopians love to do since they can't base their beliefs on any.) That "TV" you keep bringing up is a 32" SONY LCD HDTV and I bet that most people on here would love to have one as well on their systems. You really aren't succeeding with this. You're just going on confirming the essay I posted and just how much your so-called "life" is meaningless.
HEY EVERYONE I USE A "TV" AS MY COMPUTER SCREEN!!!!!!!!!! Foxfart is too stupid to get the concept. Please follow the link I posted above to fully understand the mental condition that he, and his "friends", suffer from and why they're a danger to the American way.
Score: 0
|Jealous?
Of what?
Of not having the wherewithall to have multiple dedicated systems that each excel in their targeted application, as opposed to having a config that failed to fly in 1995 for living room web browsing, that suffers compared to multiple monitors for computer use as well as suffering dramatically for home entertainment use?
But I guess we can all replicate your system, in part, if we all pull our seats to within 2 feet of our LCD screen in the home theater...LOL!
You are a walking parody of yourself, Tweenboy.
What is really fun is to observe that your posts haven't deviated nor progresses for several months. No new ideas. Heck, not evan an original idea. Just the same misuse of a word that you do not understand as well as a link to some sociopath's rant that is as comical as your drivel.
Now skateboard home, Tweenboy. I suspect your mommy has dinner on the table, and for you, in a bowl on the floor next to the back door.
Score: 1
|Bravo! A well-written discussion-worthy piece on BetaNews. That's a solid start to a new American presidency!
As for the debate: the labels for SOA prior and post "life" have a common evolutionary theme. They take the previous incarnation (no matter how popular) and add their own twist. This allows for evolutionary technological adaptation yet revolutionary marketing material! It allows for a fresh crop of coverage (buy-in opportunity) and an upsell between vendors.
The current iteration is "cloud-based" services (not necessarily computing, but at least services availability via RESTful calls). If a software architect is worth his/her salt, they should be capable of providing a buzzwords-compliant solution without selling their soul to the tech community.
Score: -1
|When I read stuff like this I realize why nothing ever gets done in the corporate world. More time is spent debating esoterica than actually building something that simply works. Even the most stalwart, no-nonsense engineers are hobbled by detached IT managers who still swoon over buzzwords and nebulous concepts a decade after the dot-com detonation. Somewhere, Scott Adams is laughing.
Score: 1
|Organizations lack business-savvy tech engineers and/or tech-savvy business managers. Frequently, orgs in possession of such personnel tend to skew towards other deficiencies (e.g. hard-headed or over-endulging c-suite executives).
Score: 0
|