--- In [email protected], "Alexander Johannesen" <alexander.johanne...@...> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 18:38, Rob Eamon <rea...@...> wrote: > > But SOA doesn't make that assumption. > > No, but "integration" does. This is about the semantics of that > word, no?
"Integration" makes the assumption that everything is designed to work together? I don't share that viewpoint. > I don't think anyone disagrees with this being what we want and > should do, but just saying "integration" isn't going to do it for > you. Agreed. But this whole debate didn't start with "integration is wonderful" or "integration describes exactly what is to be done." It started with the extreme negative reaction to "SOA is integration" and how wrong it was to say such a terrible thing and how can stop the spread of such madness! And thus, we are here debating the nuances of "integration." > Just like "SOA" is a bad word, so is "integration", even if both are > perfectly fine as pipe-dreams and aspirations to follow (and quite > normal words/acronyms with normal meaning). Okay, then we can just use fructopia or whatever it was that JP suggested. I propose we use "marklar" for everything, which South Park fans will instantly recognize and understand. > Anyway, this isn't the most exciting argument we could have. Let's > try another. :) Fire away. I'm sure we'll mire down in the same sort of muck. :-) -Rob
