Slashdot Mirror
Survey: SOA Prominent On 2005 budgets
Michael S. Mimoso writes "A Yankee Group survey of 473 enterprise decision makers reveals that companies have put aside money for service-oriented architectures for 2005." This is a bigger deal than it sounds - if companies keep moving this away, it will mean a sea change in corporate technology usage - and change the way/why development is done. We're talking everything from SOAP stuff (ITMJ is part of OSTG) to wholesale ASP adoption like Salesforce.com.
A Yankee Group survey of 473 enterprise decision makers reveals that companies have put aside money for service-oriented architectures for 2005." This is a bigger deal then it sounds.
Why does it have to be a bigger deal before it sounds? Why does a service contract have to make any sound? Can't that step be taken out entirely? It seems to me that companies can save money that way.
i didn't get the memo on this new SOA buzzword of the week...SOA still means "start of authority" to me
Is it me, or does that article spend a page and lots of big words to basicly say nothing?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That is one of the most jargon and/or marketing-speak filled story descriptions that I have ever read on /. I have absolutely no desire to waste my time looking up those acronyms in order to see if I _might_ want to RTFA.
Thanks for the great submission.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act? Shortness of Air? Sin Otro Apellido? Shadow of Amn?
Stranded.org
WAAGDWNKNU Figure it out yourself.
but isn't Salesforce.com a JSP shop, not ASP.
I think the key indicator in the article that this is the latest in buzz phrase compliance was the recommendation that "Vendors have to get on the pulpit." It's all about getting the customers over the hump into buying all of the application servers and services that will give them true SOA.
The biggest hurdle is that "executives do not understand Web services or loosely coupled architectures" (per the Yankee Group's Philip Fersht). There's the rub, and the value, of the thing. The executives don't understand the value of separation of applications (what Roger Sessions calls Software Fortresses), but are beginning to be taught. If they can loosely couple, they begin to get choice of vendor at a finer scale. They can choose different vendors for differents parts of their critical systems. So the strategy of the large, integrated solution vendors will have to be to sell the buzzphrase while continuing to delivery monolithic messes.
Soa what?
pollster: Certainly, you've set aside part of your budget for SOA deveopment. How much?
CTO, not wanting to sound stupid: Of course we are excited by the synergies present in the technology, and will continue to lead the market in SOA technologies...
And the corporate web site is up to date!
The Army reading list
We're going to be adopting ASP? Man... I don't want to have to learn VBScript!
<%
IF NOT THIS = THAT THEN
%>
I am a pragrammaer!
<%
END IF
%>
I used this open proxy to post here: 200.35.111.100 - because I am banned again! Viva la-stupido!
I think this will open the playing field to more companies since we'll be moving away from rigid systems like SAP to piece by piece built components. Also on wep services such as SOAP the open source & low cost components such as linux php and pear etc. make entry into this market quite affordable for startups.
We also will maximize our ROI while keeping down TCO in a competetive marketplace.
SOA means venerial decease...
I will listen to what they have to say when they stop employing SCO shill Laura Didio.
--
E_NOSIG
It's definitely not offtopic if you're Dutch. I was actually thinking about STD first as well...
Mail me at bern4em@yahoo.co.uk
Inigo: [looking confused] You keep using acronyms I do not think they mean what you think they mean...[looking back down] my god...his whole article is like that.
Vizzini: Whoever he is, he's obviously seen us with the slashdot factor and therefore thinks his webserver must die. You [to Fezzik] read the article. We'll [to Inigo] head straight for the first posts. Catch up when it's meta-moderated. If his webserver fails, fine; if not, the use the wiki.
Inigo: I'm going to do him in with bug-me-not.
Vizzini: You know what a hurry we're in!
Inigo: Well, it is the only way I my anominity can be satisfied. If I use my right name, the spam will come too quickly.
Vizzini: Oh have it your way.
Fezzik: [to Inigo] You be careful. People in marketing cannot be trusted.
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
"A Yankee Group survey of 473 enterprise decision makers reveals that companies have put aside money for service-oriented architectures for 2005." This is a bigger deal then it sounds - if companies keep moving this away, it will mean a sea change in corporate technology usage - and change the way/why development is done. We're talking everything from SOAP stuff (ITMJ is part of OSTG) to whole sale ASP adoption like Salesforce.com."
473 enterprise decision makers? How many best-of-breed synergized Libraries of Congress is that?
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Just last night my buddy down the street said the CEO of their company just showed up in the office and said he had been researching things for awhile and was sold on the SOA architechure, and they're moving all their old VB/COM+ code to C#/.NET
That's where my training budget went. Oh well. Guess I'll just keep reading /. and ignore the blinkenlights...
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
I have a feeling this is what the legendary TPS report looks like. But they left off the cover sheet.
Yeah... do what the rest of us do... put the link in your sig!
2006 - RTFM?
Maybe if they did a little more of the Yankee thing and a little less of the Group thing, they wouldn't catch any SOAs.
Particularly for the guys riding with them on the bus.
sulli
RTFJ.
SOA is the latest hype being pitched by vendors who want to sell expensive tools to solve non-existent problems.
It will find its niche, like web services did, but it's not going to be the next big thing.
...even for Slashdot.
And look right at the top of the article: "By Michael S. Mimoso, Senior News Editor 30 Sep 2004 | SearchWebServices.com".
Shame on you Hemos.
the generic concept of loosely coupled services within the enterprise is not entirely new but is badly needed. At JPMorgan/BankOne where I was an architect having to sort out how we were going to get all these vendor packages, legacy systems, and new projects to play nice together it is a very hot topic.
The idea is to allow us to abstract away vendors and certain ugliness so that replacing them can be scheduled seperately.
the concept of loose coupling, abstraction layers, and generic services is just good programming practice taken to a system and network level. Pick up a copy of Pragmatic Programmer to get some ideas that are less buzz-word marketing jargon laden.
Thanks to Slashdot, salesforce.com is now dead in the water. It's almost ironic that I read slashdot instead of working becuase slashdot killed one of the tools I need to do my job.
The problem is that it isn't the jargon of techies. It's the jargon of people-trying-to-market-new-buzzwords.
The article is pimping ASPs. For those of you who have managed to avoid this particular bit of buzzwordspeke, it refers to "application service providers" (not the more common usage). Basically, the idea is that some vendor runs the backend of your applications on a remote server and admins them there, and you get the front end. It has the obvious appeal to vendors -- it lets you use a neat loophole in the GPL -- since you don't distribute code, you don't have to hand source out to anyone. It also provides basically impervious copy protection -- since you don't own the back end of the application, the vendor can cut you off at any time. It also gives the vendor tons of customer info, the ability to sell tiered service (i.e. price discriminate) and lots of control over the product. Oh, and a subscription-based sales moels, which is alway spossible. It falls prey to the obvious problems -- on the face of things, ASPs are generally a big loss for customers. The customer suddenly runs the risk of losing his apps if the service provider goes under, gives his vendors much more leverage over him, has to consume bandwidth, makes the not-very-reliable Internet a point of failure for his apps, etc.
May we never see th
My sales drones use salesforce as a major tool and now because it is being /.'ed I'm getting calls from them asking why MY network is slow!!! Geee thanx /.'ers
Excuse me while I throw my phone out the window
Sig
In english a preservative is a chemical you add to food to keep it from spoiling.
Perhaps you mean either condom or prophylactic.
rife: adj., excessively abundant
ripe: adj., fully developed or matured and ready to be eaten or used
http://www.service-architecture.com/
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
Heard the hype once when it was SOAP. Heard the hype again when it was Web Services. Hearing it again as SOA. It's still the same thing - exposing parts of your business using XML over HTTP. Some will say SOA is about a philosophy, about loose coupling. What nitwits were writing tightly coupled web services? The problem there ISN'T the technology, it's the development philosophy, and products don't fix bad design.
Seen any BadMarketing lately?
Whew! I thought I was back in the 90's when vendors called me everyday pushing e-this and e-that until my head would spin from all the buzzwords flying around. After purchasing software for our company for a few years, I learned to deal with sales people like this simply by saying, "SHOW me how it works and how it's better than what we're doing now." Usually stops them in their tracks.
It's funny how cathartic it is to read an article like that, come away feeling stupid for not understanding all the management-speak, and then reading the comments here that reaffirm that it's the article, not me, that is retarded.
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
Lots of comments on the buzzwordiness of SOA, and questioning the technical merit. I've been working on a SOA project for a couple months now, and I can tell you - the technical merit is there (as well as the acrid stench of buzz).
The core idea of SOA is that there are a lot of enterprises out there with lots of legacy databases on their networks. They also have small, decentralized app development teams that just want to put the data in front of the customer, as quickly as possible. Allowing all those teams direct access to all those databases is both expensive and risky (from a security standpoint) and expensive and difficult (from the front end developer's standpoint). SOA is a way to put a single point of entry across multiple databases. The front end people can code hellbent for leather against SOAP, without thinking about security or SQL, while the SOA team writes at a somewhat slower more methodic pace, linking in security (perhaps via LDAP) and handling handling the SQL.
Basically it's a way of keeping the O/R mapping and database security problem with a single team, while also allowing individual departments and divisions of the corporation to have their own app development teams.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Dear Mr. Mimoso,
I am writing to you on behalf of the Center for Really Annoying Acronym People (CRAAP). We here at CRAAP maintain a full Acronym Database (AD) of to monitor Total Acronym Usage in Single Paragraphs (TAUSP). Using our Acronym Checking System (ACS), we establish and attempt to stamp out Acronym Overuse and Abuse Situations (AOAS). Our current safetly limits as defined by OSHA and the WHO is set at 2.
After doing a TAUSP check on your paragraph using our ACS to compare against our AD, we discovered your paragraph to be an AOAS, and thus in violation of CRAAP, OSHA and WHO standards. This C&D letter is official notice to cease all AOAS activities imediately. Further actions will require legal penalties.
Thank you.
-Farley A. Kern-Edwardo
CEO, CFO, CIA, ACU, TFO, FPS, POS
CRAAP
You only use 2% of your DNA
All the know-nothing software "architects" (guys with a title, inflated salary, and marginal reading and comprehension skills -- ie. subscribers of InfoWorld) have babbled about Service-Oriented Architecture for a while; some "bright" mind even proposed that, hey, maybe even client apps should be done using SOA (in this case, the leading desktop publishing app... what a stupid comment).
It's a pity, sure, since some simple ideas that have been floating around for decades (last time as part of Corba) are ok, with SOA -- but certainly don't warrant the overblown hype there is surrounding SOA.
For our 300 people to get email 365 days per year, that'd be $110K per year. That's something like an entire year's (actually, more than an entire year's lately) server budget around here.
Even if I bought two nice servers and clustered 'em for 99.99 uptime, I could likely get 2-3 years out of them easily. Even with software and maintenance, that's a ton of money. It might be comperable if you were talking zero IT staff, but at a 300 person company that's largely a fantasy as well.
It's a fancy way of saying: I don't buy software licenses anymore.
I finally figured out "paradigm shift" a long time ago, but, now, we have "sea change." What does this mean? Does it mean that the 473 enterprise decision makers are so overweight that the tide rises when they are at the beach? Do shipping lanes need to be routed around them? Does a belly flop off of the diving board send islanders across the Atlantic fleeing in fear?
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/30/1 620245
"...everything from SOAP stuff (ITMJ is part of OSTG) to wholesale ASP...
Uhhh.... WTF?
Sony ha
what ever happened to backing up survey with real sales data and hiring data. Since the numbers the government has for employment/unemployment is dismal and not improving nearly as fast they would like, reality seems to counter the article.
The Postmodern Generator:
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
Every time you refresh, it generates a new essay in postmodern-speak.
putfwd.com - 1GB Free file storage with a twist
Buisiness buzzwords are quite similar to technical terms.
I don't expect people to know any technical jargon (I.E. me "The keyboard yea the thing with the buttons probably right in front of the big square thing with glass in the front"), but even I don't have complete distain for the jargon of other disciplines.
Props to slashdot for trying to enlighten readers that there is more going on with the OS revolution than simply the technical aspects.
You may not want to learn the buzzwords but then perhaps someone else should be telling you what to do... (which sounds harsh but if someone doesn't know what IDE is they shouldn't be in there either).
Doing something requires knowing what is worth accomplishing, how hard it will be, and then doing it.
Chicken Little here with an announcement... Some feel that Microsoft has actually lost the war for the Windows API
/.
Here is the train that no one sees coming - MS isn't stealing an API or a package or a language this time. With Indigo, MS is trying to steal the next major programming paradigm. MS is quietly patenting the successor to OO, every wild and not-so-wild idea that anyone can pull out of their ass is being patented as a means of covering all bets. Somebody who works for MS (one of the people who burdened us with XML and then came over from the XML dark side, only to take the SOA ring back with him to the MS dark side) realized that OO programming is too hard and inefficient (save your sob stories) and said wow this old school internet thing was right all along, you remember they used have stuff like UUCP, SMTP, etc. So they slap a new name on it and all the middleware vendors dogpile onto it - it is now called SOA - A nice quippy 5 point definition for you here:
1) Interactions between "services" is by passing messages (not fucking objects) using a "contract" [protocol was too computer-y sounding] OMG, sounds almost platform independent, but wait don't forget the patentable XML trick - that will un-platform independent it.
1b) Ability of interacting services to hold a meaningful conversation is based on protocol version compatibility. Oops, I mean it is based on "Policy" (Don Box) This is also known as "Duh!"
1c) Services are autonomous. This is also known as "SOA Fantasy: The Duhpocalypse"
2) Assume an unreliable network - that was easy back then.
3) Look shit ("services") up in some kind of directory (DNS was too flexible and easy, lets go with UDDI or something similarly unimplementable or Active Directory maybe?)
4) Have boundaries (used to be called "You have your systems and we have ours", aided by a thing called dns to define the "boundaries").
5) Try to be stateless - good luck.
The only problem for people like BEA who sees that they will lose their business if people go to a fully distributed SOA model for apps in the future is: MS has gotten religion in time, this time, and BEA can't compete with MS's devtools and their ownership of a ubiquitous server platform (ie every system running Indigo - which is included "free" with any MS OS) and it fits perfectly with their goals:
1) Make it easy for any idiot to develop and deploy MS apps
2) Force people to run clients and servers using only MS OSs
3) Disallow FOSS software from duplicating functionality or participating as clients or servers
I think that covers their goals.
And when they patent everything to do with SOA and roll out Indigo they will have achieved that.
I don't think there is anything that will keep them from this. Anyone? anyone?
Copyright 2004 Rob iQEVAgUBQTBHL4GVnbVwth
Attribution required for reproduction outside of
Why the "uncool" copyright? because every techno-hipster is blathering on and on about SOA these days and I don't want to see my post show up on their "advertise here for $100/wk" techno-histper blogs without proper attribution, even if they do only want to make fun of it.
http://www.ebpml.org/indigo.htm
? pull=/msdnmag/issues/04/01/indigo/default.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/events/pdc/default.aspx
I think this push for SOA is going to be the beginning of the end for OO:
Object-oriented development focuses on applications that are built from interdependent class libraries. Service-oriented development focuses on systems that are built from a set of autonomous services. This difference has a profound impact on the assumptions one makes about the development experience.
SOA makes outsourcing easier:
The notion that boundaries are explicit applies not only to inter-service communication but also to inter-developer communication. Even in scenarios in which all services are deployed in a single location, it is commonplace for the developers of each service to be spread across geographical, cultural, and/or organizational boundaries.
- - - -
Object-oriented programs tend to be deployed as a unit. Despite the Herculean efforts made in the 1990s to enable classes to be independently deployed, the discipline required to enable object-oriented interaction with a component proved to be impractical for most development organizations.
Object-oriented designs often confuse structural compatibility with semantic compatibility. Service-orientation deals with these two axes separately. Structural compatibility is based on contract and schema and can be validated (if not enforced) by machine-based techniques (such as packet-sniffing, validating firewalls). Semantic compatibility is based on explicit statements of capabilities and requirements in the form of policy.
Every service advertises its capabilities and requirements in the form of a machine-readable policy expression. Policy expressions indicate which conditions and guarantees (called assertions) must hold true to enable the normal operation of the service.
Maybe the reasons all the buzzwords weren't understood is most programmers don't work at the enterprise level. The rest are understandibly old hats who are jaded.
Need I say more?
Dynamic service registration
Dynamic service discovery
Support for one or more standard protocols for service invocation
Note the absence of the acronyms "SOAP" and "XML" on that list.
Patrick
It seems to say that companies are moving away from the "big monolith" system and investing in more modular, loosely-coupled systems. This tends to make custom software development and niche-vendor acquisition more palatable, which may cause problems for Big Death Star vendors like SAP.
The target audience for the article is obviously IT management, and is spoken in their language. This doesn't mean it is content free, it means they focus on different things than technical people usuallly do.
I actually found the article as a decent one -- it helps add fuel to those of us who think loosely coupled services are a good thing and huge monolithic systems aren't.
-Stu
Firstly, I think there is merit to your argument. Microsoft is amassing a patent portfolio, and while they haven't used it yet, they most definitely will at some point.
.NET brand-name being one, security problems the other), I'm not confident they can pull this off.
.NET and IBM J2EE -- though BEA would probably just be acquired if it starts to falter. Sun isn't out of the game yet either, but they're certainly sidelined. And how HP rises to this arena is anybody's guess. BEA has the ability to win big here, but they don't seem to have the marketing will to become as household a name as Oracle. They need new senior leadership.
But first of all, you're a bit alarmist. Services orientation is not the new programming paradigm, and it is not a sucessor to OO. It certainly is the disruptive successor to OO-like distributed computing technologies such as CORBA, RMI, EJB, etc. But it doesn't kill OO "inside" the services.
Let's also note that OO is not actually inefficient, it's bad engineering that leads to inefficiency. OO is a tool in the toolbox, a big one at that, but must be used appropriately -- just like XML services need to.
There are two schools of thought here:
a) Microsoft wants big in the enterprise. They finally understand they need to interoperate and play well with others to do so. So they've embraced SOA , XML, etc. They will compete on being the bringing tools, performance, productivity, etc. to developers and businesses.
b) Microsoft's conducting a massive ruse and will crush BEA and IBM with patents -- especially if strategy (a) doesn't work.
We know from the Wall Street Journal article this summer that Microsoft is quietly starting to go after its own customers in dissuading them to use Linux because of their finger on the patent-trigger.
If Microsoft does start to use its patents to threaten both clients and other web services vendors, we're going to be in a very interesting time. Microsoft will have to pull off one of the biggest PR coups of all time in order to not ACCELERATE adoption of Linux and other non-Microsoft technologies. Given their recent PR debacles and marketing failures (the
IT departments like Microsoft because they brought costs down in the past and standardized skills. Today, they're becoming more of a liability -- they cost more, they're arrogant, and there are other standardized skills out there, like Linux. And remember -- most IT departments aren't ballsy enough to run their mission critical databases and applications on Windows. z/OS, UNIX and Linux are still key here, and I don't forsee a mass adoption of Mono over J2EE.
Secondly, IBM will not take this lying down. If Microsoft has a big patent portfolio, they probably have entire warehouses dedicated to IBM patents. IBM can bring 10 lawsuits against any 1 Microsoft lawsuit. So anything MS does will have to be in line with IBM.
So the only realistic scenario I could see happening is that they outsell and outmarket BEA and IBM, or at least BEA. IBM's already doing a good job at PR-slamming BEA. BEA is the marketshare leader on UNIX and Windows, but IBM's combination of sales, createive branding tactics ("everything is WebSphere!") and mainframe share have made it seem to many that they're clobbering BEA in revenue and wins, when they're reallly not.
Since BEA is the upstart here, it's quite possible we'll wind up with two major SOA stacks --
But let's also recognize that technical merit doesn't win market battles. Even if Indigo is the all singing, all dancing thing that Microsoft hopes it will be, it doesn't mean people will adopt it en masse and quickly. Firstly, it's a Windows-only technology. That's a big limit to start with. Second, it's very new and rich. There's a learning curve. Third, other vendors are not sitting still. They can and will compete.
-Stu