Keith Barrow wrote:# Software as Service: How is this really different from a well designed SOA archtecture over, say, WCF, other than where the code runs
# Who owns the code?
# Who writes the code?
# Where does your code reside and how do you test it? How "transportable" is the code?
# Are you locked into a vendor? If so, the dangers this raises surely outweigh than any efficiency gains you might find.
# How are security concerns addressed?
# Is this really different than outsourcing a company's hardware function (other than the frameworks involved?)
I don't think it is.
On Microsoft Servers as I understand it. Published I believe via VS2010.
Not very well last time I read about it. They're addressing it, but it still needs work.
I don't think it is. The idea is that Microsoft takes care of all that stuff for you. You buy the level of service you need and the number of instances you want. It gets very contractual. Think their licensing agreements.
I've stayed away from it for the time being because I can't see any sizable company wanting to allow Microsoft to have control and hostage taking power over their data and livelihood. It sounds like a real downer.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_