<Rob> > Hmmm. Interesting. I thought the presumed constraint was more > due to an assumption that service-oriented implied a > request/reply interaction. In fact, Gartner's "Introduction > to Service-Oriented Architecture" paper states > "Service-oriented architecture is a best- practice > architecture pattern for the systematic design of > request/reply applications." > > This would seem to preclude "fire and forget" interactions. > > Just to play devil's advocate (and to help me understand more > about your point) what if I said that SOA principles DO > prescribe only a request/reply interaction style? </Rob>
That would seem to be... Limiting. Why would you bound an architectural style by a Message Exchange Pattern? Regards, - Anil
