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

Opinari #16 Posted: SOA and the Reality of Reuse  
# Wednesday, August 30, 2006
 
Will software reuse really be much easier with SOA? I'd like to believe the answer is yes, but my experience so far suggests otherwise. The latest issue of my Opinari newsletter, available here, explains why.

I'd like nothing more than to be wrong about this. After all, it's still relatively early days for SOA, and some organizations have seen successful service-based reuse. Still, the overall picture so far isn't especially encouraging. The inevitable move to services brings plenty of benefits, but I'm becoming doubtful that widespread reuse of business logic will be among them.


5 comments :: Post a Comment

 

The Real Threat to Java EE  
# Friday, August 04, 2006
 
A report from Richard Monson-Haefel, Senior Analyst at the Burton Group, got a great deal of press coverage last month. The report's key message is that the venerable J2EE, known in its latest incarnation as just "JEE", is on the way out. The report also generated some responses from Java EE vendors, who not surprisingly see things differently. A big part of Richard's argument is that Java EE is just too complex, and that the latest version, JEE5, doesn't really improve this. As a result, he believes, organizations should look to other platforms such as Microsoft's .NET Framework or Ruby on Rails for future development.

Richard's a smart guy--I have lots of respect for his work--and nobody can deny the complexity of the Java platform. Yet this discussion about Java EE's future omits what I would argue is the most important threat it faces: Service Component Architecture (SCA). SCA effectively provides an alternative way to accomplish much (although not all) of what Java EE offers. Furthermore, SCA is created and promoted by today's leading Java EE vendors, including IBM, BEA, and Oracle. It can't be a good sign when the vendors with the largest market share in a technology band together to create an alternative to that technology.

Like Java EE, SCA is being created by a committee, and committees (especially committees of competing vendors) seldom create simple technologies. Just how usable SCA will ultimately be remains to be seen. And the vendors behind SCA take pains to point out that it can be used with existing Java EE technologies such as EJB. They have to say this, of course, since telling existing customers that their current investments are headed for obsolescence isn't a smart thing to do. Nonetheless, applications that today might rely on EJB, Java RMI, JMS, or JAX-WS could in the future use SCA instead.

The success of SCA isn't assured; the vendors behind it still have plenty of opportunities to screw it up. But I don't think they will--too much is riding on its success. And assuming that SCA is successful, it should displace (and yes, simplify) important parts of Java EE. In fact, I'd bet that the vendors behind SCA agree wholeheartedly with the Burton Group's assessment of Java EE's complexity. With SCA, each vendor wants to make sure they provide a good alternative whenever a customer does decide to step off the Java EE path.


6 comments :: Post a Comment