I got some interesting feedback on my recent post on bottom-up (or should that be "bottoms-up") SOA, and wanted to surface some of the discussion.The gist of my original post was based on Nick Malik's observation that bottom-up SOA approaches are “actively harmful to the enterprise as a whole and should be discouraged at all costs.
IBM commissioned a survey of attendees at its recent SOA customer confab, and concluded that SOA -- at least among this group -- is finally evolving from an IT activity to that of a more strategic business initiative. IBM said that the strategic decisions to adopt SOA "are shifting away from the realm of IT staffers to business executives.
Bottom-up SOA results in services useless to the enterprise
SOA enables data to be pulled from multiple sources and quickly distributed across service-oriented systems and applications - what if it's bad data?
Miko Matsumura weighed in on the recent discussion around the relationship between SOA and business process management (BPM), noting that perhaps a good analogy would be a mating dance seen in the wild, versus a dance involving nervous high-school sophomores:"Like the mating dance of the Sand Hill Crane, this dance looks a bit gawky but serves a very real purpose. To the untrained eye, the movements seem awkward.
There has been an interesting chat going on across the blogosphere as to whether the best approach to SOA development is top-down and bottom-up, or whether to start small or start in a big way.
Pick One: 1) SOA is worlds apart from BPM. 2) SOA and BPM are joined at the hip.
Major Java supporter threatens pullout; in the meantime, analyst report says Java's future is murky.
An explanation of why enterprise mashups are good for business at a strategic level, as well as being good for day-to-day operations of IT departments.
Cloud is too nascent to deliver on SOA ideals