First of all – don’t worry – if Anne Thomas Manes is saying SOA is dead, she means that SOA has already reincarnated under different ‘Avatar’. [This is replay to Anne Thomas Manes blog “SOA is dead;Long Live Services” on http://apsblog.burtongroup.com/2009/01/soa-is-dead-long-live-services.html. ]
SOA term is heavily overloaded (and misused) and the term ‘SOA’ means different things for different people.
SOA is service-centric approach with FWTH : First WHAT (service) and Then HOW (the service will be implemented). Sounds simple but how many time have you heard that you must first start with processes first (the HOW) ? Example: you can wish to have a nice car, you can wish to have a key, fuel and you can master the process of enetring the car and driving. But unless the driving itself is your objective, your aim is to be in some place in right time. So first set your objective (location and time in this example), then deal with HOW (by car, by plane, teleport [star trek], clone yourself [?!] , etc..)
for the blog statements:
I agree with following statements:
“…the requirement for service-oriented architecture is stronger than ever”
“Organizations desperately need to make architectural improvements to their application portfolios. Service-orientation is a prerequisite for rapid integration of data and business processes; it enables situational development models, such as mashups,; and it’s the foundational architecture for SaaS and cloud computing.”
“SOA needs to be part of something bigger. If it isn’t, then you need to ask yourself why you’ve been doing it.”
I would just comment following statement:
“SOA is not simply a matter of deploying new technology and building service interfaces to existing applications; it requires redesign of the application portfolio”
..first note that in prior statement she is talking about IMPROVEMENTS to the application portfolio, but then, here is talking about REDESIGN
(redesign require more resources and investments than improvements)
This statement is the idealistic SOA, or it is in contrast to the statement that SOA is renovation, not revolution – you don’t destroy whole building just to build from scratch new one. Not at all – you need to do smart renovation to reuse prior investments.
..moreover we must start somewhere, defining contracts and stable service interfaces is the first step towards flexibility in refactoring service providers as well as consumer applications that are using those service contracts.
…also she is not taking into consideration in this statement appliantization. Appliance = Service host + Service Provider that implements service contracts. Appliance is new higher granularity service in fact. Virtualization uses the term ‘partitioning of hardware’ – the technique that allocates certain hardware resources for some software needs (consider software services). Virtualization doesn’t require HW vendors to completely throw away their architecture and build new one, it just enables you to effectively use whole potential of the current HW investment. The same applies for original(legacy) applications – we need to do some ‘partitioning’ to enable flexible services without redesigning whole application architecture. Of course for new projects/solutions the story is different – you can build up new architecture from scratch if you have enough resources – but this is usualy not the case of the current ‘financial asteroid’. In this respect I believe current economic climate just boost services, SaaS business model, cloud computing, virtualization and appliantization to maximize reusability of prior investments and fully utilize the hidden potential of current applications in production…all of that is based on principles of SOA (and Anne is somehow mentioning that in her prior statements)
..finally I am missing more ‘mashups’ of siloed IT knowledge to get some really BIG PICTURE of IT (and it’s support for business)- something that Nick Carr is touching (from very high perspective) in his book “The Big Switch”