I spent today at the SOA Symposium in Rotterdam, taking part in a working group that tried to define a manifesto for SOA. Here's the result.
I'll spend some time elaborating on the content tomorrow, but up front, I'd like to state my reasons for participating in this effort. I'm not exactly known to be a web services fan, so I had numerous people ask me why I'd take part in something like this. To my view, this is not at all a conflict — I see SOA as a high-level approach than can be realized with multiple sets of technologies. While I believe that RESTful HTTP is actually the best option out there, I concede that people might think differently about this. But there are some high-level goals that are independent of the architectural style and being used.
So I believe that SOA is a good idea, I also believe that web services based on SOAP/WSDL/WS-* suck, and I believe that REST is a perfect match for SOA. Of course this statement would be entirely meaningless if you defined SOA as the architecture of web services. I don't.
The reason for the manifesto being somewhat vague, in my opinion, is a good one – describe the values that are common to those who aim to improve upon the typical company's IT landscape, regardless of the actual technical architecture.
I’m sure you all had fun, but it’s the total vagueness which renders this manifesto circular, meaningless nonsense. From where I’m sitting, orientation around “services” and letterboxes into applications seems to be dead anyway. Roll on the era of data integration.