RE: Web services: Meet the new boss; same as the old boss ???

Hi,

I do not see the article as negative.

It is part of the growing pain (life adoption cycle also) of any new
idea/concepts or technology.

Abbie



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 6:55 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web services: Meet the new boss; same as the old boss ???
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> > [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com] 
> > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 5:55 PM
> > To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Web services: Meet the new boss; same as the 
> old boss ???
> > 
> > I think this is actually a pretty good article -- I can't
> > imagine why you think it is inflammatory.  Seems pretty 
> > accurate to me.
> 
> Well, I didn't say it wasn't accurate :-)  Just that the 
> authors (or more likely the editors) went out of their way to 
> get in some zingers, like the "meet the new boss; same as the 
> old boss" line, and various cracks about how WS were supposed 
> to be simple but seem to be making the megaconsultancies the 
> happiest.  Some people (especially those from IBM) might take 
> it as a bit of an attack, so I was just warning people to 
> look at the substance not the tone.
> 
> The major implication I draw is what many people have been 
> saying for the last 6 months -- that WS are most effective in 
> the context of an SOA rather than as an ad hoc integration 
> strategy.  I agree that this is a bit out of scope for us, 
> except that to some extent our job is to help set rational 
> expectations for what WS can really do, irrespective of the 
> hype a couple of years ago.  I think we *are* moving toward 
> treating SOA as a first class citizen in the WSA, so if 
> anything this just might reinforce our resolve to do that.
>  
> > Within a company like ours Web service
> > architecture has to do with stuff that at the W3C level would 
> > be dismissed fairly casually as implementation detail and/or 
> > best practices. 
> 
> Good point!
> 
>