SOA in Action

There's been quote a bit of discussion raging across the blogosphere as of late around the emerging concept of WOA, or Web Oriented Architecture, that may represent the the next phase of evolution of service oriented architecture.

Essentially, WOA is another way of describing the application of the Web 2.0-style technologies and methodologies, such as Ajax, REST, and Software as a Service, to enterprise requirements. Put another way, it's running an enterprise from the Cloud, versus onsite servers, hardware, and software.

Many observers are groaning at the introduction of yet another Three Letter Acronym to our already TLA-burdened lexicon. (See Mike Meehan's post here, and Dana Gardner's post here.) Apparently, many IT architects and practitioners are also rolling their eyes at this one.

However, the WOA phenomenon is something to pause and think about in terms of its long-term (and short-term, for that matter) implications for SOA.

Dion Hinchcliffe, the leading thinker in all things WOA, says that there's no reason why much of the internal enterprise functionality we look to in SOA can't be shifted to the Cloud. In fact, WOA leverages the World Wide Web, which Dion describes as “the largest SOA presently in existence.” The services that are built for WOA are built from lightweight Web 2.0 standards and methodologies, especially REST and enterprise mashups. He also describes enterprise-based SOA as “local networks.”

Dion notes that “both approaches leverage HTTP, self-describing data formats such as XML, are concerned about the use of open standards, and can be used to build systems of arbitrary complexity.” However, while SOAs “tend to have a small and well-defined set of endpoints through which many types of data and data instances can pass, WOAs tend to have a very large and open-ended number of endpoints; one for each individual resource. Not an endpoint for each type of resource, but a URI-identified endpoint for each and every resource instance.”

He also observes that while “SOA was designed from the top-down by vendors to be tool friendly, WOA was emerged form the bottom up from the Web naturally, and has the best support in simple procedural code and an XML parser.” Plus, very importantly, while “traditional SOA is fairly cumbersome to consume in the browser and in mashups, WOA is extremely easy to consume just about anywhere.”

In a recent email exchange with a group of us analysts who have been debating the merits of creating another TLA, Dion defended the WOA designation, noting that it needs to be set apart from standard SOA approaches:

"WOA simply reflects the set of emergent network and application architectures that are working today on a large scale on the Web, getting results for a great many organizations by using slightly different techniques and a fairly different mindset than we've used in SOA. This has become increasingly evident in the many WOA success stories over the last half decade that are producing pretty darn dramatic ROI numbers for many businesses large and small (happy to share these)."

SOA as we've known it has just been too cumbersome and complicated, Dion said. "I spent five years building SOAs from 2001-2006 and have been appalled at the cost/benefit ratio."

He notes that the simpler, more rapidly deployable model that WOA offers an incomparable value proposition to slowa-SOA. "Global SOA on the Internet is producing impressive results today with WOA techniques and a quick survey of Programmable Web's hundreds of WOA-style APIs or WidgetBox/Google Gadgets can demonstrate it has already greatly surpassed our traditional SOA models in terms of industry adoption, at least on the biggest network there is. It's the local SOAs in our enterprises that are the ones having the problems."

_____________________________________________________________________

Posted by joemckendrick in Enterprise 2.0 • SOA • Software as a Service  |  Permalink  | Comments (0)  | TrackBacks (0)

Beth Gold-Bernstein, my colleague here at ebizQ, recently hosted an extremely compelling online panel discussion on the growing convergence between SOA and Web 2.0. Beth was joined by luminaries including Dion Hinchcliffe, whom I would consider the leading analyst in the Web 2.0 realm, ZapThink's Ron Schmelzer, and Doug Wilson, CTO of portals and collaboration products at IBM. (A full transcript is posted here.)

The discussion was refreshingly straightforward. Doug Wilson even came out and said that SOA can be pretty "boring," as in "SOA is kind of a boring thing if the end user can't interact in some way with the service oriented architecture. If they can't avail themselves of the capabilities, and they can't drive the compositional nature of that."

As explored in this blogsite, SOA has been delivering plenty of success stories. But how often is your latest SOA project the subject of chats at weekend parties? Conversely, there's been a stampede to Web 2.0. And, Web 2.0 probably is a subject brought up at parties. And people's eyes don't even glaze over.

The question is, how can we capture just a piece of this enthusiasm and apply it to SOA? The fact of the matter is, as expressed by the panelists, Web 2.0 may ultimately be SOA's savior. Some experts say that the lightweight, user-friendly techniques seen in the Web 2.0 experience can serve as SOA's best selling tool. Some even say that eventually, the two worlds may even blend to the point where they are indistinguishable.

Doug Wilson pointed out that "it's not always obvious for people to see the connection" between SOA and Web 2.0. However, at the end of the day, aspects of Web 2.0, such as mashups, "are the juxtaposition or combination of information from multiple back end services. In fact, mashups are a compositional mechanism by which an end user or programmer can bring multiple sources of information or transactions to bear on one problem. This goes right to the heart of SOA and SOA composition." Doug also stated that enabling users to easily compose services that make calls to back-end systems will go a long way to helping businesses see the value in SOA.

Dion provided a good working definition of what Web 2.0 is all about:

"Defining Web 2.0 can be a challenge because it represents a number of significant but very interrelated trends. The simple nontechnical definition is that it's 'Networked applications that leverage network effects.' What we're really talking about is software and communities that get smarter the more people participate in them."

Dion also provided this example of how Web 2.0 sweeps through the enterprise:

"AOL rolled out...a very heavyweight content management platform. But users gravitated to a new media wiki platform, the same platform that powers Wikipedia. Within a couple of months, because the tool was so much easier to use, and had been proven on a very large scale, with all the adoption kinks worked out of it in that very large laboratory called the Web... it was successful to the point where 95% of their content management now occurs in those platforms."

For some, SOA may meld into Web 2.0, and the result will be a global SOA, with various islands comprised of enterprise SOAs. Dion Hinchcliffe put it this way: "Look at the Web as it is today -- it has now become the world's largest service oriented architecture. Over 600 companies have opened their business up as Web services."

However, currently, the tools and protocols being used for Web 2.0 engagements are "not what we're using in the enterprise," Dion observed. "We're seeing this rise to Web oriented architecture that's happening outside our organization -- they're using REST instead of SOAP."

Will Web 2.0-style approaches eventually permeate through enterprise walls? It's inevitable, Dion continued. Web 2.0 is "leading to a realignment in the way we look at SOA. When I talk to many SOA architects, they're trying to figure out where this fits in. We are seeing some differences and some changes to the way we might want to do things on the infrastructure side."

Ron Schmelzer pointed out that it this point, they are separate efforts -- "companies are still trying to understand SOA and Web 2.0 on their own. However, he added, both business and IT are recognizing that enterprise systems, applications, and data need to be less stodgy. "When we go home and we're away from out offices, and we use the Net, and we use the latest experiences -- Google, YouTube, blogs -- we're experiencing the broad movement to Web 2.0 as part of our general computer using experience. And then we go back to our office... where we're faced mostly with technology that's still in the 90s."

"There's a lot of desire, especially among the folks in IT, to Bridge the gap," he said. "The vector, the movement... is toward this more holistic, architectural loosely coupled user-empowered style of IT -- and away from a central architecture trying to fit everything into a set of homogeneous set of systems that are tough to integrate with."

However, Ron pointed out that Web services and SOA are two very different things, meant to serve different purposes:

"The concept of SOA actually predates Web services by at least five or six years. The main proponents of service oriented architecture at that time created architecture around CORBA. The use of Web services technology is only appropriate for certain circumstances; it's not appropriate for all uses of service oriented architecture. For example, I wouldn't want a mobile device sitting on a network consuming heavy Web service and protocols."

Web 2.0 and SOA also have different philosophies, Ron added. "SOA is about empowering the enterprise, and Web 2.0 is about empowering the individual," he said. "The ideas of Web 20 and SOA are definitively different. They espouse different ideas. SOA is primarily architectural, which means it's an approach a methodology a style and a design. Web 2.0 is a broad-based movement that covers a variety of topics."

In combination, however, Web 2.0 and SOA are a power to be reckoned with. "We want the user to become increasingly more familiar with in the broad Internet, and bring that experience into the enterprise," Ron said. "At the same time, allowing the enterprise to free up its assets, and empower the business user."

The complete panel Webcast can be found here. A full transcript is posted Posted by joemckendrick in Enterprise 2.0 • SOA • SOA Events • Software as a Service  |  Permalink  | Comments (0)  | TrackBacks (0)

Two colleagues here at ebizQ have weighed in on the most vexing issue in the SOA world these days: how does SOA mesh with mashups, SaaS, and all the other aspects of the Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 wave.

Krissi Danielsson talks about the disconnect between SOA and SaaS, noting that many commentators get the two concepts confused.

Keith Harrison-Broninski talks about the intersection between SOA and Web 2.0, which can called to as "Enterprise Web 2.0." In the midst of this intersection is enterprise mashups, which will eventually point the way to business process-driven architectures.

The growing convergence between Enterprise 2.0 (which includes SaaS) is the SOA story of 2007, and likely the story of 2008 as well. SaaS presents an interesting opportunity for SOA proponents as well. Business decision makers who may be flummoxed about the meaning of SOA typically get "SaaS" pretty quickly. SaaS providers that build their services on SOA-based standards will find their solutions best interlock with customers. Plus, a good analogy for SOA is that it's SaaS, delivered internally.

Posted by joemckendrick in Enterprise 2.0 • SOA • Software as a Service  |  Permalink  | Comments (0)  | TrackBacks (0)

My colleague Beth Gold-Bernstein recently recounted a Software-as-a-Service experience with an all-too familiar ring. That is, when an error occurred in the application, she made numerous attempts to first fine, then contact customer support. She eventually inadvertently found herself on the line to the owner's mother. (Then again, it was the "parent" company Beth was trying to reach...)

I too, use SaaS-based vendors to do survey research work. One vendor I was using earlier in the year had an application that worked okay, but the vendor had a nasty habit of taking the system down for upgrades or maintenance without first telling customers.

Last February, I had prepared a survey for launch on a Monday morning, timed with a large email blast. I happened to be on the road in California, and three hours after the 9 am Eastern Time launch, I found out -- through worried emails from the survey's paying sponsor -- that the survey form wasn't coming up in the browser. Working the crisis from a hotel room, I found out that the survey vendor had taken the system down over the weekend, and ran into complications trying to install the new system.

That time they answered their phone, but a little while later to my chagrin, they were taken over by another company, and the support representatives I was used to calling vanished.

Yes, there is a risky side to SaaS. Beth points to the spotty service that one SaaS vendor provides. Another issue is data -- who stores, manages, and has control over your data?

A few months back, I spoke to Dave Mitchell, director of software-as-a-service strategy for IBM, who noted that “most of the start-up application vendors are selecting SaaS [Software as a Service] as their primary model, and increasingly as their sole model for delivering applica­tions.” If you're going with a SaaS-based startup, what guarantees do you have that they'll be around and up and running six months from now?

Dilip Wagle, a partner with McKinsey & Company, told me that one of the biggest risks is that end-user compa­nies may have less control over the reli­ability about how their data is managed. ‘Pure ‘in-the-cloud’ services imply that all the customers data are essentially stored off-premise in a data center owned or contracted by the service provider,’ he explained. ‘In the event of data center failure on the part of the service vendor, the customer has no recourse but to hope that data were appropriately backed up and managed in a secure fashion. The problem can be exacerbat­ed if the SaaS vendor in turn, out­sources back-end data center operations to yet another third party. This can com­plicate accountability and liability in the event of failure or security breach­es,’ Wagle said.

SaaS is quickly displacing the install-from-the-CD-and-cross-your-fingers approach to software — good riddance to that. But SaaS also makes us even more reliant on third-party firms which may be here today and gone tomorrow. Especially if we’re going to those startups Dave Mitchell was talking about. Remember that creed that IT managers have been living by for decades now — whether its applications, data, or coffemakers — always, always, have a backup.

Posted by joemckendrick in Software as a Service  |  Permalink  | Comments (1)  | TrackBacks (0)