Build, protect and deploy apps across any platform and mobile device
Deliver Awesome UI with the most complete toolboxes for .NET, Web and Mobile development
Automate UI, load and performance testing for web, desktop and mobile
Rapidly develop, manage and deploy business apps, delivered as SaaS in the cloud
Automate decision processes with a no-code business rules engine
Build mobile apps for iOS, Android and Windows Phone
A complete cloud platform for an app or your entire digital business
Deploy automated machine learning to accurately predict machine failures with technology optimized for Industrial IoT.
Optimize data integration with high-performance connectivity
Connect to any cloud or on-premises data source using a standard interface
Build engaging multi-channel web and digital experiences with intuitive web content management
Or rather, pick on them, but save some energy for others committing the same SOA infrastructure crimes.
A lot of commotion around Microsoft "missing the SOA boat" in the blogosphere over the last couple of days. I find it interesting on a number of levels.
Why only pick on Microsoft? Are they the only ones who commandeer "the market" to their own advantage? Why isn't anyone beating up Oracle or SAP? TIBCO or IBM or BEA? I think they're all "just taking advantage of their captive market to convince them that SOA is all about [their own] platforms and not about architectural advantage" as Dave Rosenberg over at MuleSource says about Microsoft.
Listen to any of those vendors, and SOA is about integrating within their platform. Sure, they'll all expose "services" for external consumption, but as soon as you choose a technology that's not a part of their stack, you are stuck with a "lowest common denominator of functionality" based upon standards-based interoperability. I mean, try using TIBCO BusinessWorks over an IBM WebSphere infrastructure! Or BEA AquaLogic in a .NET development shop. Of course, all these platforms "support the WS-* family of standards, standards that provide for interoperability, though what we're really looking for is integration. But, I digress on a tangent best left for another time lest I be accused of being "anti-standards."
SOA what if Microsoft is trying to commandeer SOA? SOA what if they got it wrong? (Or right?)
The point is, most customers build up a portfolio of technology upon which they execute their business strategies. SOA is meant, in part and in my opinion:
Vendors need to start thinking about their solutions and product offerings in that same context. Think of the various products as a portfolio, rather than as a stack. Hopefully, speaking as a vendor, I'll convince you to use all my bits. But, if I don't, SOA principles will enable my customers to enhance their portfolio by using products from others where they believe those products suit them better.
And, of course, Actional will provide automatic end-to-end SOA visibility, policy-based control, and security across all those platforms and protocols regardless of whether they are from any, or all, of the vendors listed above.
View all posts from david bressler on the Progress blog. Connect with us about all things application development and deployment, data integration and digital business.
Copyright © 2017 Progress Software Corporation and/or its subsidiaries or affiliates.
All Rights Reserved.
Progress, Telerik, and certain product names used herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of Progress Software Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates in the U.S. and/or other countries. See Trademarks for appropriate markings.