On 2/18/06, John Evdemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Its unfortunate that the bricklayer analogy is focused on the front-end user > experience.
Perhaps, but it is normally raw data being processed, not a UI representation thereof. One might call that "Just-in-time composition". But there are lots of other examples of the composition happening on the server; RSS aggregation for example. > I also found the table in the article somewhat misleading. SOA is not just > SOAP on servers with a slow rate of change - its also not a centralized > architecture (at least not in my experiences anyway). Typical SOAP/WSDL systems are necessarily centralized because WSDL operations aren't standardized, meaning that there's a centralization dependency on those who define the semantics of those operations. For example, a publisher publishing a getStockQuote service defines the meaning of "getStockQuote", and therefore requires that clients understand the meaning of that operation. They only way those clients can know is to inquire with that publisher, and only that publisher. On the other hand, if the publisher had used HTTP GET instead of getStockQuote, then there's no such centralization dependency on the publisher since HTTP GET is standardized. That's actually the primary reason why Web services aren't suitable for the Internet, and why systems like the Web, email, or instant messaging, are. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca 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/
