> All of this was being done before terms like service-oriented architecture existed.
I feel like the first time I heard the term was early 2000's, and wasn't it a mainframe thing first? Dunno, just wondering.
Anyhow, it's nicely written, very concise, and worth noting how the original author focuses more on "What kind of realistic options do we have?" than winning the A vs. B vs. C argument in one fell swoop.
Things like Java RMI existed beforehand and there was the elements of industry moving towards server-based partitioning of services - the big difference is none of it was formalized and there was little consistent language of which to speak about these paradigms. At the beginning yes, people would discuss having one mainframe call another mainframe but today that would be SoA.
I remember seeing the term around the mid to late 2000s. But it was also used primarily in the context of enterprisy J2EE, weblogic servers and various IBM hardware that made the everything way more complicated than it needed to be.
It was definitely pre-2000. First “SoA” firm I worked for, I started at in 99, and they had been doing it for 2 years already and most of the crew brought if from a prior gig.
I feel like the first time I heard the term was early 2000's, and wasn't it a mainframe thing first? Dunno, just wondering.
Anyhow, it's nicely written, very concise, and worth noting how the original author focuses more on "What kind of realistic options do we have?" than winning the A vs. B vs. C argument in one fell swoop.