Would "architecture-neutral infrastructure" make sense? That would provide the infrastructure job of reliably moving bits around from one "endpoint" (not necessarily used in the SOAP sense) to another, irrespective of how loosely coupled they are in time and space and platform. That infrastructure wouldn't know or care whether those bits were RPC calls, representation transfers, SOAP message exchanges, tuple space updates or change notifications, etc. etc. etc. That's not exactly what MOM or ESB does, AFAIK, because those favor one architecture or another.
On 3/15/06, Ron Schmelzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, what exactly is architecture infrastructure? Aren't these two different things... does it make sense to even combine these two words together?
Ron
Anne Thomas Manes wrote:Gregg,
A SOA infrastructure [sorry JP, but I think this term is useful] ought to support any type of communication style: synchronous vs asynchronous, request/response vs one-way, direct connection vs brokered, queued, pub/sub, Linda, etc. It's even better if the infrastructure is natively supported by most development platforms.
SPONSORED LINKS
| Computer software | Computer aided design software | Computer job |
| Soa | Service-oriented architecture |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
