Take a look at the following list. How many would you agree with from a Web 2.0 point of view? 8 of them? 9 of them? All of them?
- Thou shalt not disrupt the legacy system.
- Thou shalt avoid massive overhauls. Honor incremental partial solutions instead.
- Thou shalt worship configuration over customization.
- Thou shalt not re-invent the wheel.
- Thou shalt not fix what is not broken.
- Thou shalt intercept or adapt rather than re-write.
- Thou shalt build federations before attempting any integration.
- Thou shalt prefer simple recovery over complex prevention.
- Thou shalt avoid gratuitously complex standards.
- Thou shalt create an architecture of participation. The social aspects of successful implementation tend to dominate the techinical aspects.
Would you be surpised if this was Not about Web 2.0 , but about a thing called Service Orientated Architecture (SOA), as written by Carlos E. Perez on Managability.org. With a great degree of understatement , Carlos says
There certainly an untapped opportunity to Web 2.0 social networking technologies to the process of implementing SOA across an enterprise.
We’ve touched (briefly) before on this , calling it Enterprise Web 2.0.
So is there any difference between the terms? In my view , SOA has been consumed by the hype. Web 2.0 people just got on out and did it, giving us useful examples to copy with Enterprise Java.
Agreed, SOA is consumed by hype, but it is a special brand of vendor driven redefinition of vocabulary. Paul, take a look at this BPM 2.0 "marketing/article" http://itredux.com/blog/bpm-20/#interface
...trying to absorb the energy of Web 2.0 to make SOA seem "fresh" again. Hype alert
I've got to tell you that the 2.0 meme is wearing very thing. Everything is 2.0, I'm having Breakfast 2.0 with my Wife 2.0 right now. Sooner rather than later, we're going to have to suffer through suave newsmen telling us what Web 2.0 is all about.
Good point Tim. Now if you'd only up comments on your blog (discursive.com), I could have said the same over there :-)
Ooh, Web 2.0, Enterprise, and SOA in one post. House!
Seriously though, these all look like common sense engineering principles. Wheels pre-date the web, no?
You mention "worshipping configuration". IMO this is the type of thinking that got us into the EJB 1.0/2.0 mess, and has somewhat limited the takeup of Spring (debugging thousands of lines of bean wiring XML isn't fun).
I've noticed people recently talking more about "convention over configuration" e.g. in context of RoR, and even DSLs in preference to abstraction and re-use.
John
honestly, this makes no-sense to me. Articles like this --full of buzzwords, pointless, abstract, unusable, manager-feeders -- just lowers the quality of onjava.
Similiarly, like on TSS.
Are you a developer? I doubt it.
Dear 'SS'. Yes I am a developer (are you?), who cares about delivering results for the people that pay my wages(normally business people).
Paul
I'm sorry, maybe I was a little bit socially too agressive.
But anyway, this article is too vague, full of buzzwords.
Oriented, not orientated. The latter word refers to how a thing is positioned or arrranged with respect to its surroundings. Oriented, on the other hand, can mean to be focused on the concerns of a thing. Really... if you're going to mock something, know enough about it to call it by the correct name.