On 12/14/06, Stuart Charlton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Gervas Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I guess there must be quite a few of you who have designed and built > > a > > SOA structure around .NET, even if the resulting system was designed > > to also incorporate Java-based systems. Would you have considered > > using anything other than WS-* for the .NET-based bit? > > In 2002, COM+ was appropriate, even if the underlying technology was > .NET, since there was a lot of VB6 still out there. And I was involved > in building COM-based services in C# and C++... > > As of 2006, given WCF is (effectively) an framework for WS-*, it would > be my default choice today (whether WSE3 on .NET 2.0 or WCF or .NET > 3.0). They have some facilities for RESTful services, but it's not the > path of least resistance for most MS shops.
There is a significant barrier to adopting WCF -- it requires deployment of the .NET 2.0 framework on all systems that use it. It will be a while before .NET 2.0 is pervasive on servers -- not to mention desktops. WCF requires Vista, XP, or WinServer2003. That's why so many people are still using ASP.NET with (or without) WSE 2.0 (which uses .NET 1.1). > The only other option that remains consistent from 2002 through 2006 > was if you were using another vendor's messaging middleware, like IBM > WebSphere MQ. I've seen .NET + Java heterogenous infrastructures built > with MQ as the substrate because of skepticism over SOAP, HTTP, and > WS-*. Big blue continues to be the de facto "reliable bit movement" > champ in many enterprises, with little signs of changing. > > Cheers > Stu > > __________________________________________________________ > Have a burning question? > Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. >
