Anne, would you agree that a common component model at the meta-level of
definition (though SCA, probably, is not at such level of abstraction) were
much more usefully and made SOA infrastructure interoperability easier than an
ESPERANTO-like language such as Web Services (universal but quite limited)?
- Michael
Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm still on the fence about SCA. Does SOA need a common component model?
Doesn't a common component model unnecessarily constrain the types of service
you can create? Perhaps it makes it easier to package and deploy a composite
application, especially in the Java world, but I'm not convinced that every
service enablement environment has to directly support SCA for SCA-based
systems to consume them. SCA-based systems can consume any web service
described by WSDL--including any .NET web service.
.NET doesn't do packaging the same way as Java -- you have assemblies rather
than jars or wars or ears. Perhaps a jar-like packaging model would improve
management of .NET, but I don't hear users complaining too loudly about .NET
packaging.
I also want to point out that I don't recall and can't imagine myself ever
saying the following:
Anne Thomas Manes, research director at the Burton Group Inc., cited BizTalk as
the number one offering in Microsoft's SOA efforts.
The native communication framework in .NET (WCF) is the number one offering in
Microsoft's SOA efforts.
Anne
On 4/21/07, Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, while it's interesting to know who has longer beard, it does not help in
understanding why are the beards of different colors. Now people talk about a
common component model for SOA but how much is it different from the common
model for data exchange for SOA? That is, if Microsoft was so active with
regard to XML/WS-Security/SOAP, why it goes aside from the "Gang of 18 th"?
Such separation is not new if one recalls early days of Java. The only
problem is in the analysts and architects who play technology-agnostic games
pretending that SOA allows mix and match just because it is SOA. How a
wonderful SOA mediation solution (a la ESB) on .NET looks inside the Java-based
Services environment?
Yes, such combination can work but only on quite limited set of technologies
(like XML and, probably, Web Services). What's about other service
technologies like Java/Jini and CORBA? How is it possible to enforce technology
limitations in the technology-agnostic business-oriented SOA? It seems that
instead of technological integrity under the SOA umbrella we are pushed (again)
into segregated, technology specific worlds. This is the direct threat to SOA.
If even 18 organizations that compete in many markets between each other
could agree on SCA (finally), what's prevented Microsoft from being among them,
especially if it moves that well into SOA? Oh, maybe it is a .SOA insteadÂ…
- Michael
Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Now I could
be completely wrong, but I've always seen WCF as a development aid while SCA is
a design and deployment aid. What I mean by this is that WCF makes the job of
consuming and developing individual technology (.NET) services much simpler
(especially consumption) but SCA focuses on pan-technology services (BPEL,
Workflow, Rules, EJB, WS, etc) both in terms of design and consumption. So WCF
makes it easier to abstract the protocols away and do simpler service to
service communication, WCF is a developer focused technology that helps make
code simpler. SCA however makes it easier to design, deploy and manage
enterprise class service solutions, SCA is an architect and operation focused
technology that helps make projects simpler.
>From a historical point SCA was first released in IBM Process Server which
>debuted in 2005, so wasn't "keeping up" with WCF which wasn't released until
>.NET 3.0.
On 18/04/07, Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nothing has happened with it so far at OASIS. Also I believe one of the
motivations for SCA was to keep up with WCF...
Eric
----- Original Message ----
From: John Evdemon < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[email protected] " <
[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:44:00 PM
Subject: RE: [service-orientated-architecture] Seeley on the MS Approach to SOA
Many of the capabilities in WCF seem to be available in some form within SCA
(at least that was my take on it after I read some of the SCA papers – I
haven't kept up with it since it went to OASIS).
From: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: service-
orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Stefan Tilkov
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:44 AM
To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] Seeley on the MS Approach to
SOA
On Apr 17, 2007, at 6:39 PM, Gervas Douglas wrote:
> Microsoft doesn't support the Service
> Component Architecture (SCA) and Service Data Objects (SDO)
> specifications, which offer similar functionality to .NET.
I wonder what this is referring to - what would qualify as the .NET
equivalent to SCA and SDO? Not that I'm a big believer in these two
specs, just curious.
Stefan
--
Stefan Tilkov, http://www.innoq. com/blog/ st/
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
