When you know it isn't a cloud

Following up on the previous post I thought I'd do the REALLY obvious ones that indicate it isn't a cloud. James' list wasn't nearly cynical enough in light of the things that are claimed to be a cloud.
So here goes

1. If its just a single website with no backups storing stuff to disk then its just a standard WEBSITE not a cloud (Hello Sidekick)
2. If its a physical box that is meant to help you manage a virtual environment... then its not a cloud (hello Cloudburst appliance)
3. Seriously if you are just a single website doing stuff with a database you aren't a cloud (hello Soonr)
   
4. No seriously if about buying a physical box it isn't a cloud (like HP's spin though that they are just cloud enabling... nice weasel room)

And I could go on. The point is that cloud is an infrastructure thing, it is IaaS in the "aaS" hierarchy. PaaS can have a go at being cloud but SaaS is "just" something that might be deployed to a cloud. Having a website (SaaS solution) that runs on Amazon doesn't make that SaaS solution "a cloud" it makes it a SaaS solution hosted on a cloud.

The hardware point is that making capital expenditure is exactly what a cloud isn't about and physicality is exactly what a cloud isn't about. You want virtual compute and storage that you pay as a utility. This is the economic model of cloud.

So in the words of Kryton. I know that strictly speaking I've only identified two things, but they were such big things I thought I'd say them twice.

Technorati Tags: SOA, Service Architecture

How you know its SOA

Over on the Yahoo SOA list there has been a discussion on how you know if a solution is service oriented. Now beyond the superb OASIS SOA Reference Model I'd say there is a very simple test.

1. Do you have the SOA "picture"
2. Can you map the picture to the implementation?
3. Can you map the picture to how its operated?
4. Can you map the picture to how you are organised?

What I mean by the picture is something like this


Now this is quite a high level picture but if that implementation was truly service oriented then I'd expect to see these services made available with interfaces as defined by the picture. This would mean its an implemented SOA (SOD IT). If in the operation of the system you can show how each of these services is managed as a specific entity and how it is managed inline with its KPIs and Priorities (e.g. like the Manufacturing Service) then its an operational SOA (SOO?). Finally if you can show how the organisation is set up around those business services then you can really say that you are service oriented in your bones.

Looking at the technology isn't the place to see if you are really doing SOA, you've got to look at the architecture before you know that.

Technorati Tags: SOA, Service Architecture

Web 2.0 a definition for managers

About 2 years ago now Andy Hedges summed up Web 2.0 to me as

Big Fonts, rounded edges

Although he claims he didn't invent this I'm going to credit it to him as I've not managed to track down a similar quote to get a better reference point for a presentation I'm writing.

Now of course there is the drive towards intimacy and of course there is the concept of the internet and the web as a platform. But seriously, how many sites are just the same as before but with "Big fonts, rounded edges"? Its almost as if the developers convinced management that this was all that was needed.

Same pig, different lipstick.

Technorati Tags: SOA, Service Architecture

Define SOA without S, O or A

I was given a challenge today to define SOA without using the terms "Service" "Oriented" or "Architecture". What I came up with was

Its a way of modelling what a business does, then understanding who it works with and why the business works with those external parties and the different parts of itself.

Now I need to get it shorter and crisper, but I prefer that to "a style of software architecture" which doesn't really help anyone.

Technorati Tags: SOA, Service Architecture