In the wake of Anne Thomas Mane's demonstration of the blogging value of bold pronouncements (See SOA is Dead, Long Live Services), tracking reaction to her article has been more fun than watching YouTube videos of skateboarders demonstrating Darwin's theories of natural selection -- though far more educational.
Thanks to a post by David Linthicum, I followed a link to Did SOA die or do we just suck at architecture?, a wonderful post by Mike Kavis. Mike lists six points illustrating the latter possibility, among them:
Based on what I've seen of the ongoing architecture discussion in various groups and communities, I think Mike makes a compelling case. And with so much debate about architects and architecture in general, is it any wonder that there is so much misunderstanding about what SOA is, how to do it, and what it's supposed to do?
And that begs another question: if there is indeed so little consensus on architecture in general and on SOA in specific, what guarantee is there that the "surviving" service-oriented concepts Ms. Manes mentions in her article, including cloud computing and SaaS, won't suffer from the same misunderstanding?
Perhaps there is no such guarantee. But the cure for misunderstanding is communication. So for architects, particularly those who have to bridge the gap between the IT and business sides of the house, the ability to clearly explain these concepts and technologies is essential, regardless of how they're labeled.