Tactical or Strategic Cloud Services?

As presented in Network World, "The Equal Work Chance Commission (EEOC) expects to conserve 40 % over the next 5 years by changing its monetary management application to a cloud computing supplier-- an indication of the huge cost savings to come from the U.S. federal government's shift to the software-as-a-service model." Great, however not great.

The truth is that US government has a great deal of IT fat that can be punctured using cloud computing, with leveraging SaaS-based applications being the low hanging fruit. What's excellent about SaaS is that that business case is evident, and the cost savings are generally between 40 and 60 percent. Nevertheless, what's not so fantastic about SaaS is that you're only taking care of a single application domain and not the architecture holistically.

While the cost savings that the US government, and we as taxpayers, can delight in from cloud computing is considerable possibly tactical steps such as leveraging a single SaaS application just masks bigger more systemic problems. Undoubtedly, what's really needed is a general strategy around the use of cloud, and the architectural actions to get there. This consists of using other cloud options, such as IaaS and PaaS, in addition to SaaS.

The issue is that architectural modification around the use of brand-new technology, such as cloud computing, is hard while simply migrating from a single on premise application to a SaaS app is simple and quick. Nevertheless, the former offers many more effectiveness and expense savings when thinking about both the economies of the technologies along with the agility their use brings.

So, when government firms think cloud they have to thing long term and strategic, and not brief term and planned. We will all be much happier with completion outcome.

Strategic Cloud Services

Cloud Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)

The basic principles of service-oriented architecture are independent of vendors, products and technologies

"So did SOA resolve integration? No. However then once again, no one ever promised you that. As Neil observes, we'll probably never see a 'turnkey enterprise integration solution,' but that's probably an advantage - after all, organizations have various needs, and such an option would need an Orwellian-level of standardization."

The fact of the issue is that SOA and integration are 2 various, but interrelated concepts. SOA is a means of doing architecture, where integration might be a result of that architecture. SOA does not set out to do integration, however it possibly a by-product of SOA. Baffled yet?

Truth-be-told integration is a deliberate technique, not a byproduct. Hence, you have to have an integration strategy and architecture that belongs of your SOA, and not simply a desired outcome.You'll never get there, trust me.

The problem is that there are 2 architectural patterns at play right here.

First, is the goal to externalize both habits and information as sets of services that can be set up and reconfigured into options. That's at the heart of SOA, and the integration typically takes place within the composite applications and procedures that are produced from the services.

Second, is the goal to duplicate info from source to target systems, ensuring that details is shared in between inconsistent applications or total systems, which the semantics are handled. This is the objective of integration, and was at the heart of the architectural pattern of EAI.

Plainly, integration is a purposeful action and thus needs to be dealt with within architecture, including SOA. Thus, SOA won't fix your integration issues; you need to deal with those directly.

service-oriented architecture