Articles in this series

3 responses to “A Viable PaaS Model”

  1. Mereo Ectella

    I have a lot of respect for the author of this blog, however, I’d love to re-start the dialog he mentioned earlier. It is my perception that a platform, any platform is much simpler. Hardware with an configured OS and IIS can be considered a platform. The orchestration layer wouldn’t be necessary to provide the service aspect. I think I understand what is trying to be communicated here, however this complexity provides limitations in the definition and an adoption of the model would just simple be absurd. PaaS is a simple concept, building blocks. We shouldn’t be communicating and mixing cloud aspects of orchistration and what is necessary to provide a platform.

    Consider a disclaimer that provides some scope around your post.

    Again, I’m a big big fan of the Author, however I think this one is just went a bit overboard.

    1. Krishnan Subramanian

      As I told you on Twitter, it is Dave’s perspective. However, I agree with you on the definition of platform. When you call PaaS, in the cloud sense of the term, it should include orchestration because we expect not just the service aspect but also elasticity. But again, this is my personal opinion on the definition of PaaS and has nothing to do with Dave’s rationale for this model.

  2. PaaS Element Types

    [...] PaaS Element TypesBy Krishnan Subramanian on December 8, 2011 Please Note : This post builds directly on the previous post “A viable PaaS Model“ [...]