If SCA sets its bar as competition with WCF I'd be disappointed. The developer-side is over supported in terms of "optimisations" that reduce the lines of code, the challenge I see is in the design, deployment and management (which is where SCA helps). The challenge with SOA is in the thinking, not in the coding, the focus on coding optimisations just tends to mean that people do dumb stuff quicker.
Certainly Indigo was announced way back, and IBM only announced SCA about 6 months before it went prime time, the prior incarnation (WS-IF) was certainly less than powerful and not overly easy to use, but does have a startlingly similar goal to that of WCF, and the Apache release was in January 2003. I've had quite a bit of experience around SCA and I like the development model, but what I like more is the conceptual model that it allows. Are you going to look at the current OASIS SOA RM - RA work around policy in the SCA group? On 21/04/07, Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Steve, Interesting conjecture all right, but as a co-chair of the SCA Policy WG I can tell you for sure that one of the motivations behind SCA is indeed to compete with WCF - however you might want to mince the words. The timing of IBM's product release is not significant because WCF which publicly announced at the fall 2003 PDC in LA under the name of "Indigo" along with all the rest of the Vista pieces, and at that PDC Microsoft provided early release code that attendees could use. Take a look at the Java client SCA spec - this is definitely designed for developers. The SCA metadata is included in Java code using annotations, very similarly to the way in which WCF metadata is included in C# code. SCA is very much a developer effort in addition to an assembly and deployment effort. It also supports multiple protocols via policy configuration. Eric ----- Original Message ---- From: Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:53:42 PM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Seeley on the MS Approach to SOA 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] com <[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 < john.evdemon@ microsoft. com<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com<[email protected]>" > < service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com<[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/<http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/> > > > > ------------------------------ > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? > Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM-> > > ------------------------------ Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM->
