I like either this resolution or a definition which is extremely general. Obviously any properties assigned to a "service" will have great ramifications and possible restrictions for defining SOA as a whole.
--- In [email protected], Ron Schmelzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Despite very amorphous and not very technically strict definitions of object, we still managed to grow, maintain, and justify the existence of Object-oriented architecture. I propose to you that even though the term Service may be amorphous because it describes an abstract set of capabilities that are really defined not by the what's, but by the how's (a movement away from tighly coupled. programmatic logic and towards loosely-coupled, metadata-driven declarative composition), we are still able to describe something called SOA as it compares to OO, n- tier, client/server and other forms of architecture." ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life. http://us.click.yahoo.com/A77XvD/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/NhFolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
