Burton Says SOA Is Rising From Ashes
- Share
-
- |
Read later
My Reading List
Nearly two years after proclaiming that SOA was dead, the Burton group has changed their mind and now writes that SOA is set for a comeback.
Quoting Chris Howard from Burton, Maxwell Cooter writes :
... there's a different climate now. There are several reasons for [SOA] comeback... there is a still a need for SOA but it had been sidelined as a technical issue and that IT had failed to sell SOA as a transforming methodology... SOA projects failed because there was too much concentration on the technology and because, in the financial climate of the past few years, major transformational projects were canned
According to Cooter:
... [the] companies would need to stop talking about SOA as a technology but in terms of a business case. Technologists must recast SOA as an architectural approach rather than a technology-first solution... Service oriented environments require a higher level of abstraction in design, which must be decoupled from the underlying technology
Picking on Burton’s report, David Linthicum notes that the initial SOA failure was, for the most part, due to the overselling the SOA technology (ESBs as "SOA-in-a-Box,") not to the approach itself. In his opinion, SOA is a foundation of many things including good enterprise architecture, business/IT alignment, effective usage of cloud computing and more.
According to Linthicum:
The core purpose of SOA is to define a way of doing something that provides an end-state architecture that's much more changeable and thus much more agile, and ultimately provides more value to the business.
For a few years now InfoQ has been promoting SOA as an architectural style based on a functional decomposition of enterprise business architecture and introduces two high-level abstractions: enterprise business services and business processes. Enterprise business services represent existing IT capabilities (aligned with the business functions of the enterprise). Business processes, which orchestrate business services, define the overall functioning of the business. This architectural style is a foundation of many current and future implementations regardless of the technologies that are used for the actual implementation. It is nice that analysts are sharing our opinion again.
Selling approaches doesn't make money
by
Hermann Schmidt
To me, this even seems like a retreat to more abstract grounds because the technology approach didn't quite cut it. In abstract land, life is so much easier. Yes, there is work to be done here. However, at the end of the day, some technology must carry it all. Plenty of opportunities to fail. Someone has to take care of it.
...that architecture strategies that involve cloud computing must have a service orientation foundation.
No. They need not. They should.
Cloud computing in general doesn't force anyone to think more service-oriented. You can build monolithic apps just fine. Cloud is not a SOA migration path. Conservative minds will still find ways to avoid change, and guess what, stuff may work for them.
Re: Selling approaches doesn't make money
by
Felipe Oliveira
From a technical point, it makes more sense you distribute only parts that have very intensive use. This allows for horizontal scalability and reduced maintenance costs.
Best Regards,
Felipe Oliveira
Big bang dead, bottoms-up alive and well
by
greg schott
Soa tools must be technologically open.
by
Cenk Ozan Kahraman
Re: Selling approaches doesn't make money
by
Hermann Schmidt
The point I was trying to bring across: if the costs of monolithic apps in the cloud is lower than in classic infrastructure, they will be built. Enterprises may consider a new architecture, but they don't have to.
I don't see any intrinsic force in cloud computing, which inevitably drives enterprises to go service-oriented.
Re: Big bang dead, bottoms-up alive and well
by
Boris Lublinsky
Creation of services that make sense only in the realm of existing project leads nowhere. This will become SOA for applications, with all drawbacks of application centric implementations
Re: Selling approaches doesn't make money
by
Boris Lublinsky
No (very few) application is an island. This means that just lift and redeploy would not work, still have to connect to others. The other interesting observation is coming from Netfix talk at QCon SF. They kinda looked at this and decided that in order to move to Amazon they do have to rearchitect
Re: Big bang dead, bottoms-up alive and well
by
Steve Snodgrass
Re: Selling approaches doesn't make money
by
Hermann Schmidt
Cloud platforms may restrict data exchange to other transport protocols/techniques. However, that doesn't profoundly affect the design and content of an interface (its semantics).
I can happily design an HTTP binary interface without taking care of backward or forward compatibility, and with no reusable content.
That is the core of my critique. Service orientation doesn't come through new platforms. It's not about how things are hosted, exposed, and transported. It is about the design of software.
As for HTTP for instance, this would be the leap from using it as just another transport protocol to a true resource-oriented architecture.
Personally, I do hope that cloud computing is taken as a starting point to rethink stuff and drop ballast.
Educational Content
Java Garbage Collection Distilled
Martin Thompson Jun 17, 2013
C++11 The Future is Here
Bjarne Stroustrup Jun 16, 2013
The Big Data Revolution
Claudia Perlich Jun 16, 2013
Engines of Abstraction
Jim Duey Jun 13, 2013
Behavior-driven Development
Liz Keogh Jun 13, 2013
Hello stranger!
You need to Register an InfoQ account or Login to post comments. But there's so much more behind being registered.Get the most out of the InfoQ experience.
Tell us what you think