RE: Application design & architecture

> From: Trevor Perry
> 
> Let me repeat. SOA is Architecture. Not technology. Not hardware. Not
> software.

Repeat until you're blue in the face.  As close as one can come to your
definition, EDI is SOA.  EDI-INT certainly is.  And that's my point; SOA
brings nothing to the table that we haven't talked about for years.  It
doesn't solve anything that hasn't already been solved, which is why it's
not the Universal Panacaea that you keep spouting. 


> I think your negativity about SOA is unwarranted.

As is your hype.


> I am disappointed that you have not chosen to understand the depth and
> truth of SOA.

I haven't "chosen" any such thing, any more than I have "chosen" the speed
of light.  I merely explain what I see; SOA is simply one more name for
inter-computer processing, except this one uses Web Services.

Nothing new under the sun here, kids.  And if we could get away from the
hype of hucksters and instead simply point to the strengths and weaknesses
of the approach, we'd get a lot more done. 


> And here is your example. I work with a software company that has an ASP
> solution used for many of Walmart's vendors. They send huge amounts of
> data
> between Walmart and their suppliers. This software is used in a completely
> secure manner, with high speed data transfer, and with non-repudiation. It
> is an open standard that is used to communicate between applications, and
> has essentially an integrated ESB. For smaller data transfers, they will
> be
> wrapping a web service front end, but in the meantime, their solution is a
> true SOA implementation without web services.

Yeah, I have a client who does something similar.  They use FTP to
synchronize orders between locations.  What makes your solution SOA and
theirs not SOA?


> Your email does not suggest you know
> the truth (refer to "abject failure of the UDDI").

UDDI is an abject failure, as bad as EJBs.


> I for one would prefer
> you to see the business value in SOA, but if you are going to close your
> eyes and avoid even a modicum of understanding of the truth, then I can
> help
> you about as much as I can help Rob. I would have liked to think you, of
> all
> people, would have dug a little deeper than just the dirty surface sales
> pitch.

You have yet to specify a single concrete thing that is SOA.  Instead,
you've been condescending, smug and aggressively arrogant.  You call names
and belittle those who disagree with you.  Your comments drip with sarcasm
and a self-satisfied elitism that simply boggles the mind.

I have stated specific reasons why I think SOA is simply one more TLA
applied to time-honored and evolving IT practices, and all I get from you is
that I'm wrong, and I'm stupid for not seeing that I'm wrong.


> Last time we had a major disagreement, you learned a lot by hearing one of
> my presentations. You called me anti-iSeries, and now you know I am not
> anti-i anything. You must respect that there are a lot of reasons why I am
> not anti-SOA, and that this is something I am not just blowing steam
> about.
> There is so much more than can be discussed in a few emails on a technical
> forum.

Trevor, I don't think you stand for anything but Trevor.

Joe