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
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?
I will listen to what they have to say when they stop employing SCO shill Laura Didio.
--
E_NOSIG
This calls for Dack.com's Web Economy Bullshit Generator
Some quick examples:
reintermediate bricks-and-clicks partnerships
brand e-business action-items
orchestrate visionary interfaces
Using this tool we can quickly create:
Using SOA we can engineer wireless web services to deliver frictionless communities. It will allow us to optimize out-of-the-box portals and extend our enterprise models. If we monetize viral convergence we can synergize customized relationships and utilize matrix efficient infrastructures. SOA will enable us to reintermediate compelling e-business thus increasing our ROI. Our TCO will be minimied due to the increasing ability to drive magnetic markets.
I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
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.
I have a feeling this is what the legendary TPS report looks like. But they left off the cover sheet.
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.
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?
As opposed to the current model for enterprise software:
The vendor sells you the app and comes in and sets it up incorrectly. The guy who got the training and all of the manuals gets a better job and leaves. You didn't buy a service agreement, so you don't have the updates that you need. You have to set the clock back to 1998, because its not Y2K. And it only runs on Windows NT, Service pack 2, with constant attention required to keep the log files from overflowing.
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