WebServices dot org

Web 2.0 or SOA? Web 2.0 and SOA? Let the Debate Begin! - Part 1

Lately, a debate has been raging across the industry and blogosphere around whether enterprise interoperability can be better achieved through Web 2.0 or Service-Oriented Architecture approaches. The two camps have been calling each other a lot of names, and accuse each other of being overhyped. Some say the debate is downright silly: as Dave Orchard put it : “It's not ‘SOA vs Web 2.0,’ the question really ought to be ‘why aren't more corporate environments using Web 2.0 technologies.’ To which the obvious answer is, ‘It's the apps silly.’” Most enterprises have all the functionality they need right on their own servers, Orchard points out.

And, ultimately, it’s a matter of where will Web 2.0 approaches best fit the needs of end users in the enterprises, and where will an SOA approach fit best. The solutions need to be complementary, with roles for both – not a question of either/or. This being said, it’s not clear yet how ready Web 2.0 is for the enterprise, and how ready enterprises are for Web 2.0.

There’s no doubt Web 2.0 has captured the spotlight these days. It’s also clear that to some extent, the Web 2.0 cluster of technologies will inevitably influence the course of SOA, and there will be plenty of convergence down the road between the two approaches. However, Web 2.0 is still an outsider to the enterprise, and has yet to prove itself as ready to meet the rigors of day-to-day business.

First, let’s look at what, exactly, Web 2.0 is. The most commonly accepted definition is that it’s the emerging collection of Internet-based social services providing online collaboration features such as RSS, blogs, wikis, and mashups. Google Maps mashup services fall into this definition, as do XML-based solutions such as Ajax. Many regard the REST Web services model (XML over HTTP) as a Web 2.0 phenomenon. In other words, services that are tightly linked to the Web and its protocols, versus the “non-Web” systems that enterprises deal with, such as databases and legacy components.

While Web 2.0 generally has been predominantly composed of outward-facing consumer services, SOA has been mainly focused on inside-the-firewall approaches to the standardized integration and mapping of applications to business processes.

Lately, some industry watchers have been observing that Web 2.0 projects seem to be running rings around their slower-moving and more elaborate SOA counterparts with all sorts of new, snazzy “mashup” applications. Their conclusion : Web 2.0 has the momentum; the “buzz;” is this year’s black; while SOA is expensive, stodgy and arcane.

Vinnie Mirchandani said that when it comes to SOA, "I am still hearing lots of fundamental questions - and hearing about multi-year projects, lots of external consulting services, more technology jargon. In the meantime, in the Valley, young (and old) kids, oblivious to all these weighty questions are writing their own SOA in very small letters - in mashup camps."

“The Web 2.0 revolution, and it really is a revolution, is where the enterprise software industry should be focusing our attention,” SAP’s Jeff Nolan recently blogged . “It is here that customers see the benefits modern architectures enabled by SOA, but SOA alone doesn’t go far enough to be called anything more than an enabler of Web 2.0, the other critical components being REST and scripting, which end up feeding from one another.” Nolan added that SOA only seems to benefit publishers – not users – of software.

John Hagel took the debate to a new level in another recent post , observing that while SOAs “initially generated significant interest within the enterprise because they appeared to offer a much more flexible and rapid way to build new application functionality relative to traditional enterprise application architectures,” the approach was “hijacked by an alliance of CIOs and IT consulting firms, each with their own reason for extending the effort required to deploy SOAs.”

Hagel goes on to add that SOA lost its revolutionary spirit this way: “Line executives within the enterprise are experiencing mounting frustration over the escalating hype around SOAs, the growing spending over SOA design initiatives and the relatively limited business impact achieved by SOA deployments. In contrast, Web 2.0 initiatives are leading to a proliferation of mashups.”

In other words, these analysts are saying that SOA became “corporate,” and is all about the big money, while Web 2.0 has the raw passion and spiritual purity of a struggling artist or musician. Remember, once the money starts rolling in, and outsiders become the insiders, things change.

Enterprises that need to deliver and support highly available applications with iron-clad SLAs for mission-critical applications want assurance, not a revolution. SOA has its detractors, but what is the alternative? Those companies that can integrate their application portfolios in the smartest, cheapest way possible are the ones that can come out ahead. Right now, the only way is through the Web services standards that have been in formulation since the beginning of the decade, and are supported by just about every major vendor. If not SOA, what?

In Part 2 of this Weblog, I’ll look at what detractors of Web 2.0 are saying, and how Web 2.0 and SOA may eventually have a lot in common besides XML.