Wednesday Mar 21, 2007
What are the alternatives to a SOA style architecture?
Some people I have spoken to recently have suggested that they are not convinced as yet that a SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) style architecture is correct for their organisation.
The major vendors are all promoting SOA and for better or for worse it is the architectural style that is being used for new projects. It may not necessarily be called SOA. But largely, if the architecture is not a 80s/90s style client/server model, then there will be a business tier that exposes services at some granularity to be consumed by a presentation tier or another business tier service.
So the main alternative for a SOA style architecture would be to more tightly couple the integration moving back to a 80s/90s style client/server model. Some organisations have still not moved from this model.
My objections to SOA are not based on archictecture differences. I'm questioning the relevance of that line of consulting in the first place.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,824,Postmodernism-Disrobed,Richard-Dawkins-Nature
This kind of analysis is worth directing at the acronym frenzy that is management consulting and programming gurus.
SOA is not even wrong, it's just a grab bag of stuff that sounds like it should be right.
Posted by steve on April 03, 2007 at 05:18 AM CST #
Another related URL for you to read:
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2087
If you want to make headway against this kind of process, you need to drop all the jargon about SOA and service deliverables and SaaS outsourcing for sygergistic processes.
Here's a bit. It can be 0 or 1. Put 8 of them together and they can be 0 to 255. Work your way up from the basics of computing, using evidence and proof from the first step onwards.
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1041.html
It's not going to be easy, but at least you'll stop being a consultant and start saying things that actually make sense. :)
Posted by steve on April 03, 2007 at 05:38 AM CST #
I hate commenting on weblogs. I don't think I'll continue.
I'll leave you with a thought. Web server. Client browser.
Doesn't seem so different from client/server now, does it?
Posted by steve on April 03, 2007 at 05:40 AM CST #
I think it funny really that people question the value of SOA. After all, it's been around for thousands of years but we just didn't call it that. It's been the stable of bureaucracies right back to ancient Egyptian times. Ever since some schmuck said 'fill out Form 1 to receive your daily ration of barley', we have been using SOA.
When I go to get a copy of my birth certificate, I fill out the form, pay my $35 and wait 3 days. Then lo and behold, I get a certificate in the mail. There's no other way to request it (except online, using the same process & form), and I don't need to know how they did it. Trained monkeys and carrier pigeon is fine by me.
And that's SOA in action.
The bottom line is that it's not about the technology (although the technology helps make it possible). It's about the way it is approached.
And what's more, it's not much different to what we've always done in IT, except it forces us to apply the rigour and explicit definition that we should've been using all along. And that is what makes for more flexible, robust and agile solutions - far more than the technology you use.
So Steve is right - it's over-hyped (because it's not that different). But Nick is right - it's a far better way to do things that past approaches.
And you should never underestimate the power of the subtle shift...
Posted by Notnerb on May 02, 2007 at 09:40 AM CST #