Comments on: Service Oriented Architecture is your Ticket to Hell

By: Erik

Erik — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:52:17 +0000

You also forgot to mention that SOA designs creates a single point of failure for all applications that use those services. As such, SOA architectures are the antithesis of reliability too.

By: markez linda

markez linda — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:53:57 +0000

I really liked your blog!

By: The War On Bullshit » Blog Archive » Four Simple Truths that Undermine Software Architecture

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:30:46 +0000

[...] Related articles: Service Oriented Architecture is your Ticket to Hell [...]

By: Avery Lin

Avery Lin — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:20:27 +0000

Thanks for sharing guys.

By: Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:14:27 +0000

What you want is an access forms VBA app on top of SQL Server 2005, I run a multi-million dollar corporation on the back of that baby.

Object Orientation is for kids who don’t understand the procedural paradigm. Now COBOL 2 that was a PROPER programming language…

By: Great reads for this week « Computing Life

Great reads for this week « Computing Life — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:15:37 +0000

[...] Is SOA bullshit SOA architecture is not new (raganwald) Code/Data Seperataions vs Encapsulation – (raganwald) [...]

By: John

John — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:08:06 +0000

…it’s the ol’ Chicken and Egg.

By: John

John — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:04:16 +0000

Cyclic dependency…

By: Kavan Wolfe

Kavan Wolfe — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 05:42:57 +0000

Thanks for all the comments. Here are a few selective responses:

@Daniel: My point was *not* that the OO paradigm is superior to the SO paradigm, only that the latter has some glaring deficiencies. Sure, some people use it successfully, but some people use Windows successfully – that doesn’t mean Windows or SOA don’t have serious problems.

@Derek: Spring won’t work when you don’t have control (or access to the source of) the services you’re using or the ones using your service.

@CPinto: your business is not agile if you can’t change your code base without breaking an unknown number of dependent subsystems

@eng: I’m not comparing SOA to other approaches.

@Arnon: I like points 1,2 and 3. I don’t know what you mean by point 4

@Kit: WRT point 1, see Erl’s books. WRT point 2, in a marketplace with many service providers, services are not organized into hierarchies. That’s why we can get dependency loops.

@John: thanks for the reminder. It’s been a while since I read Hafstadter. I wasn’t using ‘Strange loops’ in the technical sense. I should have said whacky loops or unexpected loops or something.

By: John

John — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:37:13 +0000

A strange loop is where you take a second order concept (i.e. an ‘emergent’ phenomena) and apply it in the context of its first order concepts (i.e. its ‘substance’). So… what you have here isn’t a strange loop, it’s just an infinite regress.