About a year ago, I put out a blog post describing ambitions for SOA as an architectural basis within a single application domain. It was about relating messages, code, and data bi-directionally using transforms. Formal descriptions for those transforms could then become a new order of patterns in software architecture. The goal wasn’t to solve the gap between describing requirements and cutting code. It was to link the overall solution concerns more intelligently and pave the way for more declarative aspects and dynamic features.
The mistake I made was in trying to put a moniker around the concept – SOA 2.0! At the time, the ESB community was pushing really hard to say ESB==SOA. I wanted to distinguish architecting integration solutions – the bread and butter of an ESB – from architecting the traditionally opaque integral applications within an enterprise.
But calling it SOA 2.0 was clearly a bad choice. It’s sort of nice to be near the top of a search result (Google: “SOA 2.0”). Maybe your experience will vary, but I cringe when I see what company I have on the same page (but I did beat Oracle by a few months!). The post has been linked by others (Hinchcliffe, Little) but not exactly the way I hoped. A rookie blogging mistake if there ever was one.