tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post114829655607167924..comments2023-09-27T14:38:58.735+01:00Comments on Mark Little's WebLog: SOA 2.0 ignoranceMark Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15072917010265365428noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post-1156320549675198882006-08-23T09:09:00.000+01:002006-08-23T09:09:00.000+01:00Hi Mark,Perhaps the SOA-EDA discussion is a matter...Hi Mark,<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the SOA-EDA discussion is a matter of definition, but:<BR/><BR/>Did you ever notice that EDA is an inverse of RPC-style SOA? (RPC-style SOA: may I nowadays call that SOA 1.0 since the raise of SOA 2.0?) In EDA the data-supplier takes the initiative in contrast to RPC-SOA where the consumer does. In EDA the supplier and consumer do not know anything of each others existence, they are decoupled. On the other hand in RPC-SOA the consumer calls the supplier by name and even waits for a reply. If the reply doesn't come, the consumer falls into an error procedure; that really is tightly coupled, isn't it?<BR/><BR/>You can have RPC-SOA to behave asynchronous by using asynchronous queues to perform service requests. Well, you are tricking around but it is not EDA; EDA is asynchronous by nature, you can't trick it to act synchronously. EDA has focus on data (message) while RPC-SOA has focus on function (service).<BR/><BR/>EDA has affinity with business processes and SOA has affinity with application construction. Taking into account that the EDA approach is an inverse of the well known SOA approach you might say the two paradigms are complements by nature.<BR/><BR/>I recognize a huge business potential of asynchronous, event oriented design. And I believe that EDA by its nature will be the paradigm to realize the ultimate alignment of business processes and the supporting IT-systems. I think that the ultimate layer between our real world events and artificial application constructs will be an EDA. And I recognize the possibilities offered by the current IT-technology evolutions to support this paradigm.<BR/><BR/>Jack (<A HREF="http://soa-eda.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">see my thoughts here</A>)Jack van Hoofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10073941747649739657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post-1153426352830995642006-07-20T21:12:00.000+01:002006-07-20T21:12:00.000+01:00This is the essentially the same problem of Web 2....This is the essentially the same problem of Web 2.0... "now it is safe to go back into javascript waters".<BR/><BR/>It is the need to create a market. SOA wasn't understood so let's further confuse people by adding a version number, seemed to work with DHTML and javascript.<BR/><BR/>Freedom to add events to a service which I am sure will trigger the usual discussion about whether an operation within a service is an event. What is an event... maybe Duane needs to update the SOA Reference Model with some version numbers on the entities. :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04423758143249729744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post-1149074475239199102006-05-31T12:21:00.000+01:002006-05-31T12:21:00.000+01:00Thanks for the support Mark!The petition is now up...Thanks for the support Mark!<BR/>The petition is now up - see http://www.mwdadvisors.com/resources/stop-the-madness.php<BR/><BR/>Fight the power! ;-)<BR/><BR/>NeilNeil Ward-Duttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08178536381761706113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post-1149002972877664462006-05-30T16:29:00.000+01:002006-05-30T16:29:00.000+01:00Creating new terminology for things we have always...Creating new terminology for things we have always been doing also helps us book authors :-)<BR/><BR/>Does AJAX fit into this same camp?James McGovernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10192703428650911093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post-1148630121444391392006-05-26T08:55:00.000+01:002006-05-26T08:55:00.000+01:00http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=626#com...http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=626#commentsMark Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15072917010265365428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post-1148567413385485542006-05-25T15:30:00.000+01:002006-05-25T15:30:00.000+01:00Thanks. As Greg alludes to, I don't usually let th...Thanks. As Greg alludes to, I don't usually let things like this (aka Analyst Speak) bother me, but this one just goes too far.Mark Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15072917010265365428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post-1148489932513233192006-05-24T17:58:00.000+01:002006-05-24T17:58:00.000+01:00Nice post Mark!I just came across this (unattribut...Nice post Mark!<BR/>I just came across this (unattributed) quote: "Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege." I think it sums up pretty well how I feel about the recent emergence of the term "SOA 2.0"...<BR/><BR/>See <A HREF="http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2006/05/soa-20-stop-madness.html" REL="nofollow">my post here</A>. (I referred to you, but you don't have trackback enabled...)<BR/>If I get some encouraging comment on this post, I'll set up an online petition...Neil Ward-Duttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08178536381761706113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post-1148368187204836422006-05-23T08:09:00.000+01:002006-05-23T08:09:00.000+01:00Greg, I don't think I'm being pedantic at all (not...Greg, I don't think I'm being pedantic at all (not so sure about passionate either). I understand why we may want to indicate the transition from one implementation approach to another, but calling it SOA 2.0 isn't the right way to go (to be honest, I'm not so sure about the Web 2.0 tag either). I thought I'd made that clear in my post. SOA is an *architectural* approach. Web Services is an *implementation* style. We shouldn't confuse the target audience by bundling things together like this.<BR/><BR/>As an industry, if we believe this "new era" needs a name, let's give it something unique. The Cretaceous Period wasn't named Jurassic 2.0 for a very good reason!<BR/><BR/>I still wonder whether SOA 2.0 would have been so named if there wasn't so much activity around Web 2.0!Mark Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15072917010265365428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post-1148337072574403142006-05-22T23:31:00.000+01:002006-05-22T23:31:00.000+01:00How about EDSOA 2.0?ROTFL!!!How about EDSOA 2.0?<BR/><BR/>ROTFL!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post-1148337002835839292006-05-22T23:30:00.000+01:002006-05-22T23:30:00.000+01:00Mark - awesome post!!! Couldn't agree with you mor...Mark - awesome post!!! Couldn't agree with you more. More on subject here:<BR/>http://technoracle.blogspot.com/Duane Nickullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767498160563891543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post-1148326965738908592006-05-22T20:42:00.000+01:002006-05-22T20:42:00.000+01:00Good to see some passion there Mark. But I think y...Good to see some passion there Mark. But I think you're being a little pedantic for the target audience.<BR/><BR/>In practice, most people have been conflating SOA and Web services. What people are trying to get across to CIOs and IT architects is that that's not quite right: we're maturing to an architecture that combines both service invocation-style interactions and messaging.<BR/><BR/>The second problem is that there is not a clear mechanism to rationalize how these two styles should be combined. What Oracle is coming to the table with is a model that combines invocation style semantics and broadcast semantics into a coherent, integrated framework. The Fabric platform extends SCA to include support for business events, and provide a model for moving between the two modes of interaction seamlessly.<BR/><BR/>Call it what you want -- or don't give it a name. At the end of the day, the discussion among practioners has to happen somehow. To my way of thinking, this is as good a mechanism as any.Greg Pavlikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02076590604248408230noreply@blogger.com