> the JMS requirement was only there because the initial proponents > happened to be JMS vendors.
There are reasons for this that should be considered. I know it is an API and not a priori "interoperable" (in all the dimensions of that term), but many implementations are interoperable in various ways. And it is fairly simple yet expressive. I would suggest there are a number of vendors of JMS due to its simplicity (it can be implemented and used without a ton of effort) and expressiveness (it can be used successfully, widely). For all of these reasons it seems something like JMS should be the core of an ESB. -Patrick ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/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/
