> After all, what the heck is anyone really getting when they do SOA that they > couldn't get before with CORBA or even EDI? The ONLY real difference that > we can apply here is the use of standards based on ubiquitous Internet > protocols, which means, that in order for SOA to deliver where EDI and CORBA > failed, it must be ALL about Web Services and the Web Services protocol > stack.
I think CORBA was designed in a way to work with any underlying protocol. Including unreliable UDP as well. infact it defines abstract protocol (GIOP) specification. > Please do not read this as JP is saying that SOA is synonymous with Web > Services. I'm just a logician following a basic line of reasoning that the > industry has laid out. However, for me, SOA is all about the deployment and > management of services, which is something that was sorely lacking from all > the prior distributed computing environments. I think, still CORBA component model, offers best solution for packaging, distributing and deployment and management of application components across distributed systems. Still not with Web Services. > Anyone remember CORBA's biggest flaw? You couldn't look up your or register your CORBA > object into any implementation of the CORBA Naming Service. I think Naming service was meant for this purpose only. And all the vendors Naming Service allowed registration and location of corba object to this service. And now it has support to more sophisticated Trading Service. ------------------------ 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/
