On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 04:22, Michael Poulin <[email protected]> wrote: > why would it be so difficult to call 'former' SOA a AIA (application > integration architecture) or simply Web Services?
Don't know about AIA (sounds a bit like, "aiaiaiaia, you've got a problem!"), but Web Services is just right out; first of all, we're not dealing just with "web" stuff, not everthing in SOA travels even over HTTP or even TCP/IP, but most challenging to me is that Web Services *implies* SOAP and WS-* which are implementation details (which I also happen to shun). I like Rob's Service Orientation, actually. Close enough for rock'n'roll, but with enough difference as not induce that nasseating feeling ... > A little problem with Anne's statement in the context of your post is that > SOA had to be replaced by just Service, which is not that FAR from SOA... > However, if we would have AIA and Service, it is a quite clear separation, > IMO. Don't know about all this, really. I still call it SOA, because whenever I say it I put in the disclaimer "and by that I mean thinking of ZZZ and doing XXX, not technologies YYY" which tends to help communication and discussion. How about we take SOA back? Regards, Alex -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps ------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
