[Info-vax] We're not the people who used to sell you Middleware. Honest!

[Richard Maher]

Hi Arne,

> Companies can not afford not to do SOA. It is pretty expensive not
> to reuse.

So "SOA is the *only* way to the path of reuse"; got it!

Do you have any toasters or dietary-supplements while you're here?

Cheers Richard Maher

"Arne Vajhøj" <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote in message
news:495c3477$0$90271$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk...
> Main, Kerry wrote:
> > Yep, I still maintain there is going to be a return to the basics as
> > Companies can no longer afford grandiose SOA / "latest rip-n-replace
> > craze of the month" distributed programming strategy developed by the
> > analyst / university / whoever theorists.
>
> Companies can not afford not to do SOA. It is pretty expensive not
> to reuse.
>
> SOA is most definitely not about replacing systems. You could argue
> that SOA is about not replacing systems.
>
> Distributed environments is a reality today. And it is not going
> to go away tomorrow.
>
> SOA is not a university thing. They still do OCAML, Haskell and
> similar - SOA is practical thing.
>
> Typical SOA advocates have 10-25 years of experience.
>
> > 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.
>
> Arne