[Info-vax] Seasons Greetings

[johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk]

On Jan 3, 3:42 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a... at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> > In article <495ef31f$0$90265$14726... at news.sunsite.dk>,
> >    Arne Vajhøj <a... at vajhoej.dk> writes:
> >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >>> In article <495c3477$0$90271$14726... at news.sunsite.dk>,
> >>>    Arne Vajhøj <a... at vajhoej.dk> writes:
> >>>> Main, Kerry wrote:
> >>>>> Yep, I still maintain there is going to be a return to the basics as
> >>>>> Companies can no longer afford grandioseSOA/ "latest rip-n-replace
> >>>>> craze of the month" distributed programming strategy developed by the
> >>>>> analyst / university / whoever theorists.
> >>>> Companies can not afford not to doSOA. It is pretty expensive not
> >>>> to reuse.
> >>> And you can't reuse withoutSOA?  I thought "re-use" was the Ada buzzword,
> >>> not theSOAbuzzword.
> >> Reuse is aSOAbuzzword.
>
> >> Just at a service level instead of a code level.
>
> > So, your not really reusing then?  :-)
>
> It is reusing.
>
> Just bigger chunks.
>
> >>>>SOAis most definitely not about replacing systems. You could argue
> >>>> thatSOAis about not replacing systems.
> >>> Well, when you re-write all your COBOL in Java, sure sounds like replacing
> >>> to me.
> >> It is.
>
> >> But since that would not have anything to do withSOA(in itself), then
> >> it is not particular relevant.
>
> > Maybe not, but uit certainly has to do with the cost of implementation.
>
> How can the cost of something that is not required bySOA- in fact is
> very nonSOA- say anything about the cost ofSOA?
>
>
>
> >>>> Distributed environments is a reality today. And it is not going
> >>>> to go away tomorrow.
> >>> Let's see, I still have the newspaper article with my picture in it when
> >>> the place I was working went to "Distributed data Processing".  That was
> >>> 1981.  Since then, they have gone centralized, gone back to distributed,
> >>> gone back to centralized and are now back distributed.  May not go away,
> >>> but it will definitely change.
> >> I think you are reading the term "distributed environment" different
> >> than it was intended.
>
> >> Practically no companies today have all their stuff on a single system.
>
> > Looked at MS Terminal Services/Thin Clients lately?  All the power in the
> > data center and not n the desktop.  When I mentioned the cyclic nature of
> > this above, I never said it ever went down to one server.  The first time
> > we went to "Distributed Data Processing" there were 2 Univac Mainframes and
> > 5 Prime minis in the datacenter.  And they moved a whole bunch of the
> > processing to LSI-11 (and later M68K) micros on the desktop.  And then,
> > later, pulled everything back to the datacenter with PC's accessing all
> > the applications from the Unix minis.  And then, moved applications out to
> > the PC's.  And the next wave is going to be Thin Clients, which puts all
> > the applications and data in the datacenter, regardless of how many machines
> > there actually are there.  At least until the pendulum swings back the other
> > way again.
>
> You may needSOAas soon as you have a distributed environment which
> is as soon you have 2+ servers doing the work.
>
> How much of the work is done in the data center and how much of the
> work is done at the desktops has little to do with it.
>
> >> There are very good reasons not have file servers, intranet web server,
> >> internet web server, database, mail server, ERP system, CRM system
> >> etc.etc. running on a single system.
>
> > The data center approach, as opposed to the "Distributed Data Processing"
> > approach does not now and never meant everyting on just one box.
>
> True.
>
> But the data center discussion was a detour from the topic in the
> first place.
>
>
>
> >>>>SOAis not a university thing. They still do OCAML, Haskell and
> >>>> similar -SOAis practical thing.
> >>> Well, I recently visited another education site I used to work at.  We
> >>> use Banner where I am today (it replaced in house applications on an
> >>> IBM mainframe).  I asked if they used Banner.  I found the answer to be
> >>> rather interesting as it was 180 degrees away from my current employer.
> >>> They looked at Banner and chose not to for exactly the reasons I have
> >>> a;ways been against any of these canned programs.  No flexibility.  Where
> >>> I am now they shove a package at you and tell you to change the way you
> >>> do things to match the programs capabilities.  Now that's what I call
> >>> user friendly.  This former locations writes applications based on user
> >>> defined requirements.  Care to bet which one is paying more for their
> >>> system and its maintenance?  Oh yeah, at my current location, since
> >>> dumping their locally written systems in favor of canned packages the
> >>> programming staff has more than tripled.  Tell me again how all this
> >>> new stuff is more economical.
> >> Having one system doing X is usually cheaper than having two
> >> systems doing X.
>
> > Which has what to do with what I said above?
>
> It has everything to do with the topic we are discussing.
>
> >>>> TypicalSOAadvocates have 10-25 years of experience.
> >>> Somehow, I find that very hard to believe.
> >> It is easy to verify by checking out the people writing
> >> about it.
>
> > That only tells you who is talking about it, not who is actually
> > implementing it.  
>
> The people talking about it are also working with it.
>
>
>
> >>>>>http://tinyurl.com/3crd5o
> >>>>> "Remember Cobol? If You Don't, Get Reacquainted"
>
> >>>>> Extract :
> >>>>> "In spite of its reputation, Cobol remains a resilient force in IT. Dale
> >>>>> Vecchio, research director at Gartner Inc., says there are roughly 180
> >>>>> billion lines of Cobol worldwide. This isn't surprising, given that Cobol
> >>>>> has been around for more than 40 years. What is surprising is Gartner's
> >>>>> comment in a February research note stating that 15% of all new application
> >>>>> functionality through 2005 will be in Cobol."
> >>>> Not surprising.
>
> >>>> If the new features is <X% of the total app, then it does not make
> >>>> any sense to rewrite the entire app in a new language to add the
> >>>> new functionality.
>
> >>> And if the old, much simpler language can do the job, it really doesn't
> >>> make sense to use newer, more complicated technology simply because it
> >>> is newer.
> >> "can do the job" is not enough - it has to be "can do the job cheapest".
>
> > Yeah, and that usually depends on who's pocket the money is coming out of.
> > If I can bill a re-write to some otehr department, it becomes the cheapest
> > no matter how much it actually costs.
>
> That phenonomen occurs.
>
> Arne

Apparently you've misunderstood. SOA is dead. It must be true, its
obituary was in a blog post at the Burton Group yesterday. Don't take
my word for it, use the source:

http://apsblog.burtongroup.com/2009/01/soa-is-dead-long-live-services.html

Extract: "After investing millions, IT systems are no better than
before. In many organizations, things are worse: costs are higher,
projects take longer, and systems are more fragile than ever. The
people holding the purse strings have had enough. With the tight
budgets of 2009, most organizations have cut funding for their SOA
initiatives.

It’s time to accept reality. SOA fatigue has turned into SOA
disillusionment. Business people no longer believe that SOA will
deliver spectacular benefits. “SOA” has become a bad word. It must be
removed from our vocabulary."

There are some enlightened comments too. Jeff Griffiths comment seems
to put things particularly well in real world terms.