Re: Application design & architecture

Trevor,

Without taking a side in the SOA debate, let me say that Joe's comment
about your coming across as "condescending, smug and aggressively
arrogant" seems spot on.

What you say about SOA may be entirely true (or not), and it may really
be the greatest thing since sliced bread (or not), but your presentation
turns me completely off.

My humble advice is that, as a practical matter, the best way for you to
advance the SOA cause is to be vewwy vewwy qwiet.

--Dave


Trevor Perry wrote:

Joe!!

This is ridiculous.

SOA is NOT new!! It is a compilation of BEST PRACTICES. The things that you do are most likely SOA already! For example, your FTP solution could be SOA. Who said it was not? YOU!

It seems like the people who are pushing back the hardest are the ones who are positioned the best to take advantage of SOA. All of your complaints are misguided and misinformed. SOA is not a panacea, but another step into the future. If you look at the future of the web - that is, web2 or Semantic Wave - you will see that SOA is one of the prerequisites to moving to that future.

SOA is simply not that complicated. By making it complicated, you and Rob can say it is wrong, but all you are doing is simply misunderstanding and now, misdirecting the readers with your abject ignorance on the subject.

Your argument is simply that the world is flat. The advocates of flatness cannot see beyond their own four walls. The world is not flat, and SOA is no longer a religious argument. It is a reality, and as a community we need to understand it. Misdirecting the System i community as to SOA is only going to provide more ways for people to argue against the i. And then, we are all out of a job.

I remain positive, in the face of complete ignorance.
Trevor

----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Pluta"

Subject: 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