On MovieTome: The 10 worst movies of 2009 so far!
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 1 of 2:
Next »
wow that's nuts!
I'm pretty amazed by this "magic number" and am going to try to heap scorn on it without any scorn getting on my good friend Joe McKendrick who is just here to report the things people come up with to say. Joe = great guy, magic number 50 = bad idea.

Really?

Something magic happens at 50 services and before that you don't need SOA Governance? Wow I must confess this sounds extremely ignorant to me.

A lot of people define services at different levels of granularity, therefore some companies that have smaller numbers of services may need governance capabilities sooner. Having a magic number like that smacks to me of dangerous and vague advice and frankly seems silly.

Secondly, some people are deploying complex mission critical services that carry transactions and are used by multiple consumers with multiple different use case patters. Now you could argue that each use case pattern is a "different service" and somehow claw your way up to 50 services, but I'm going to say that you probably want to institute governance as soon as the services you deploy actually matter to your business. This can be as early as your first service, depending on granularity and on whether the service is low value or high value (mission critical).

My 2 cents. I dont ordinarily rant like this, this magic number talk just seems to stick in my craw. There's enough bad soa out there, so no need to add to it.

Miko Matsumura
Posted by: mikojava   Posted on: 04/13/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

wow that's nuts!  mikojava | 04/13/07
RE: 'Fifty' may be the magic number for SOA governance  salim@... | 05/21/08

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads