David Chappell

  • September 2020
  • November 2017
  • April 2017
  • October 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • August 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003

Opinari

Get the Feed! Subscribe

Why Service Component Architecture Is Big News  
# Sunday, April 02, 2006
 
In an industry where new technologies are usually over-hyped, there’s one that’s not getting nearly enough attention. Service Component Architecture (SCA), currently described in a group of preliminary specs created by IBM, BEA, Oracle, SAP, IONA, and Sybase, generated a few news articles and blog posts when it was announced late last year. Since then, it’s largely slipped from view.

Yet I’d argue that the magnitude of what’s happening with SCA is analogous to Microsoft’s announcement of the .NET Framework back in 2000. If the vendors behind this effort can make good on their promises—and there are good reasons to think they can—a major part of the development world will be shifting to a new platform. This is big news.

SCA attempts to do several things. First, it replaces large parts of J2EE. SCA still relies on some J2EE technologies, such as JavaServer Pages, but its creators seem intent on moving away from EJB and other parts of this complex technology environment. The SCA specs make soothing noises about working with these older technologies, but SCA largely subsumes their functionality.

SCA also aims to eliminate Sun’s control over the primary non-Microsoft application platform. Given that both Sun’s stock price and its J2EE app server market share are in single digits, it makes no sense for it to retain control of this fundamentally important technology. By creating SCA outside of the Sun-controlled Java Community Process, the vendors behind this effort have made their intentions clear.

It’s also fair to view SCA as an attempt to provide a platform that’s technically competitive with Microsoft’s Windows Communication Foundation (WCF). I wrote a comparison of SCA and WCF shortly after SCA’s announcement, and the two have many similarities. WCF is significantly simpler than the .NET technologies it replaces, and it’s simpler still than the analogous J2EE technologies. Without a streamlined replacement for these J2EE technologies, which SCA tries to be, Microsoft’s competitors would be at a serious disadvantage.

SCA certainly faces hurdles to success, some of which I described in my SCA/WCF comparison. Still, for organizations moving to SOA—that is, for pretty much everybody—SCA is a big deal. Unless you’re an all-Microsoft shop, in which case your future will rely on WCF, your primary vendors have told you that they’re about to change the platform on which you build service-oriented applications. Since this style of development is becoming the default, the platform you use for it matters enormously. If you care about application development, pay attention to SCA. It really is big news.


15 comments :: Post a Comment