I’ve been musing lately on why we in IT insist on forgetting so much valuable knowledge. I don’t know whether it’s because of our youth-obsessed culture and our focus on the newest and best, because of our tendency to prioritise on-the-job over traditional learning, or whether there’s simply too much in the “architect’s book of knowledge” (ABOK), and we all have to focus on the new to keep up.
I explore two very different examples: the value of understanding RS232 in this 3G+ world, and some recent discussions on service reliability, both of which can be resolved using some quite old knowledge…. (Read More…)
I never said SOA needed a new algebra. I said it needed an algebra. I expect (indeed hope) that some (perhaps even all) of the elements of this algebra are already known. I agree that most (perhaps even all) of the problems are older than SOA.
But the reason I use the word algebra is because I want a systematic and coherent approach (not just a random collection of techniques) to address a set of problems (composition and decomposition) that are currently handled very badly. Most of the people in the SOA world seem to be ignoring or fudging these problems. And there is very little work being done in this area.
I think that’s fair. We both acknowledge that many of the techniques we need are already established, and the challenge is to bring them into a coherent structure which serves the SOA world appropriately. However, given the thrust of my article, which was really about knowledge management, I’d disagree with Richard’s use of the word “known”. I think a major problem is that we’re looking for new solutions, and the value of existing techniques could be ignored.