--- In [email protected], Michael Poulin <m3pou...@...> wrote: > > Exactly! > Look what we had at the beginning: "SOA is integration", and now > you are saying that "Integration is not SOA" - interesting
Okay, I guess we've been splitting hairs all along anyway. My intent was that not all integrations are SOA. But all SOA definitions are integration. > BTW, "is" and "encompasses" - are not synonyms in English because > the latter has meaning of including or surrounding something but > not being equal Fair enough. SOA is an approach to integration. SOA is a form of integration. Is that better wording? > 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 We do not agree on A. The wording is misleading. All architectures describe how components are integrated. But we've beat this to death and I've lost interest. (mostly) :-) > Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!!! You too! -Rob
