Mark loves to point to articles like this one as a way of "proving" that SOA is bad. I don't believe for a second that SOA is a panacea, but honestly, Mark, you could replace "SOA" in the title and text of that article and others like it with the name of pretty much any technology or approach -- yes, even REST! -- and it would read pretty much the same.
As Jim points out in a comment on Mark's blog, the article is really more about process than anything else. I would generalize that comment and say that the problems the article talks about are almost entirely rooted in non-technical issues.
Comments (2)
The article mentions that it's all about good governance of business and IT systems. The IONA customers who are most successful at implementing SOA today are the same ones that learned about good governance implementing a service oriented architecture 10 years ago with CORBA. As Steve says it's the process that counts. Without good processes, the best technology in the world is not going to work.
Neil
Posted by Neil Kenealy | September 8, 2006 4:46 AM
Posted on September 8, 2006 04:46
I didn't point to it to show SOA is bad - because AFAICT it doesn't show that. I just liked the point about SOA introducing more complexity - which I've been saying is the case for quite a while.
Posted by Mark Baker | September 8, 2006 9:56 AM
Posted on September 8, 2006 09:56