Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Dan, I'm going to bow out of this debate. I don't think I'll ever
> convince you that there's anything different about WS-* vs. Jini and I'm
> pretty sure you won't convince me Jini does it all.
>
Fair enough.
> IMO its not realistic to think that a technology "makes it", or not,
> purely based on its technical merits. Maybe Jini can indeed do it all,
And, I think with my boxer analogy, I was making it clear that I wasn't
suggesting it was purely a technical merit thing?
> but that's irrelevant: does MSFT support it? What about IBM? What about
> Oracle? What about SAP? What about IONA? What about Macromedia? What
> about a host of other companies? (No, I won't say "What about
> WSO2?" ;-))
>
Hmmm, so I just don't get this argument. If SOAP/WS-* is the ultimate
legacy integration tool, why do I need all these guys to support it?
Isn't the argument supposed to be that even those systems that don't
support it can still be relatively easily integrated? Or are we
actually stating (perhaps as the politics comment below suggests) that
we expect all suppliers of all products to provide support out of the box?
Dan.
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/
