RE: Application design & architecture

C'mon now!  Are we really going to start debating about debating?

I know that both Trevor and Joe are highly intelligent gentleman and I
would hate to strip either one of their personalities just for the sake
of this or any other topic.

I also know that this is a subject that is important and misunderstood.
It was the main focus of the most recent COMMON and I still don't feel
that I understand it sufficiently.  Personally I have found this (and
the previous thread) highly entertaining and somewhat enlightening.

My advice (and I'll ignore it myself at times) is that if you don't have
anything to add to the TOPIC don't click send and PLEASE don't shoot the
piano player.

Regards,
 
Scott Ingvaldson
iSeries System Administrator
GuideOne Insurance Group


-----Original Message-----
date: Tue, 09 May 2006 07:17:34 -0700
from: Dave McKenzie <davemck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: 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