> fundamental difference between a transfer and transport protocol
> is. The best I've seen so far is "its the layers in the OSI ref
> model stupid" .. which is hardly satisfying .. at least to me.
Why is this not satisfying? Do these definitions not make very clear
distinctions? Is this not "fundamental"? One protocol is for network
performance, the other is for application performance. What more of a
distinction could you possibly be looking for?
I did not read any message that said "because it is in the OSI
model". Rather the messages have been saying "the model says X". Do
you not believe the model has value? That could be a legitimate
complaint worth discussing. Otherwise I think the model is generally
accepted as having value, and so refering to the model seems to have
value.
> Anyway, thanks for the responses; I didn't really want to have a
> long thread on this- I was looking for an enlightened one to give a
> solid, simple definition but that does not appear to be forthcoming.
Sorry. I don't even understand what "does not appear to be
forthcoming" means. You'll need a highly paid consultant for
that. After all, they seem to have that "SOA" thing covered so well.
"I didn't want to have a long thread on this" -- what kind of a
response is that? Let's go back to shallow platitudes of SOA as soon
as possible, yes, please. Why try to work out issues of substance.
Sorry I am not "enlightened" enough to just fall hook, line, and
sinker that WS-* will save my organization. 'Cause otherwise it would
"be doomed".
When the going gets tough...
-Patrick
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.
