Exactly! Look what we had at the beginning: "SOA is integration", and now you are saying that "Integration is not SOA" - interesting
BTW, "is" and "encompasses" - are not synonyms in English because the latter has meaning of including or surrounding something but not being equal So, if you do not insist on the Wonderland's algebra: TRUE:: A = B => B != A, then we agree on: a) SOA leads to integration but SOA is not an integration b) integration does not lead to SOA by itself Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!!! - Michael ________________________________ From: Rob Eamon <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:16:17 AM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Yefim Natis is sure that "SOA is integration" I think this illustrates the root of the disagreement here. You keep positing that people are making the argument "integration leads to SOA" but the statements have been the reverse--SOA is (or encompasses) a form of integration. Integration doesn't lead to SOA. But SOA *always* entails integration, IMO. -Rob --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael Poulin <m3pou...@.. .> wrote: > > To my understanding, you can link/integrate even technical > components in certain style that makes 'integrated' entities to be > capable of serving in accordance to the SO principles. The > resulting entities are SOA services not because of used integration > but because of SO principles preserved during the design and > implementation. This is why I against the motto: "SOA is > integration" > > - Michael
