> SCA does not define a model for creating services. >It only defines a model for composing services. >From my perspective, therefore SCA does not qualify > as a component model. And based on the Syzerpski >Test, it fails all three tests, because it does not >define units or unit deployment, only consumption of units.
I believe I understand where your going... let me throw something at you and see if it sticks... You use the terminology: "creating services" vs "composing services" What if you created a component/service by: - writing some Java (or other) code - then tag them as a component using annotation - then bind your component to one or more interfaces (local or remote) - then use a deployment descriptor like the one described in 2.1.1 of the 'Assembly' spec? Now remember, the ratio of components-to-modules can be 1:1, meaning that a single 'component' can be a deployable unit. Said another way, a component does have a unit of definition and a unit of deployment. The whacky thing about the SCA spec is the terminology. The term 'component' roughly equates to a 'unit of cohesive software with encapsulating constraints', while the term 'module' takes on the old meaning of 'component', Szyperski style. This said, are we any closer to fulfilling your requirements? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season! http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/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/
