Rich Turner of Microsoft blogs about his diatribe over the SOA acronymn "invented", hyped and promoted by the likes of Gartner and other groups over the last couple of years. ("AJAX" is the latest such gaffe, simply a marketer- packaged new "name" for something people have already been doing quite well for a long time, thank you).

Specifically, I agree with Rich's posture "We do strongly subscribe to the notions of SO as abstract guidance and goals for building distributed systems. ...... but we don't have a SOA because we don't believe such a thing exists, and if it is, its too poorly defined for us to adopt."

RIch continues to explain that SO(A) is only part of the story and talks only about part of building a solution: how to construct a system from loosely coupled, cooperative services, but makes no mention of how to visualize data, how to integrate devices, how to analyze and mine information, and so on.

A real architecture (that's the supposed "A" in SOA) takes a lot more than some ideas, a bunch of marketing hype from self-appointed gurus, and the latest nom du jour, no matter how important or sexy it may sound to the uninitiated. Really, I always thought SOA stood for something else anyway...

You know, as you mature, you don't get "B'd by the B" as much as when you were younger. Some things are timeless, like Miles' trumpet solo on Freddie The Freeloader, with 'Trane picking up right after. SOA? Heh! Don't waste my time.

And I seem to remember, Rich, that you were also working on a whitepaper that compared .NET vs. COM Interop MSMQ performances. I'm still looking....