Dave Linthicum examined the real meaning of "services," outlining four points about what makes and doesn't make a service. In his first point, for example, he says that "services don't need to be Web services. However, this is a confusing statement for those of you who have been absorbing the hype."
Michael Poulin had a response to Dave's post, "When Considering Services... look into SOA standards." Michael agrees with Dave's first point, that services need not be Web services. However, he takes issue with Dave's additional three points. For example, while Dave says services produce behavior and data, Michael says services produce niether beahavior or data.
And while Dave says "services are not applications," Michael begs to differ. "Services are applications built on special service-oriented principles," he argues.
We also saw a lot of interesting responses to the challenge to describe the business case for SOA in one sentence. Some suggestions:
- "What is the business case for NOT using SOA?" (Paul Vincent)
- "SOA is the paradigm shift for IT from a sense of entitlement to one of utility!" (JP Morgenthal)
- "Easy to change and adapt Responsive Organization." (Avi Rosenthal)
- "You don't make the business case for SOA itself, rather the benefits of a solution underpinned with SOA. Increasingly in many spheres of software development, SOA (or subsets) is implied in the architecture already." (Ross Mason)
Leave a comment