> Based on my interviews with Fortune 500 companies, portability isn't
> especially important, but interoperability is.
I wonder if it will become more of an issue as development teams
discover less covered issues and desire to move to other vendors, etc.
> btw -- I am not a WS-only proponent. Application requirements should
> always dictate technology choices. As a rule, I always recommend
> standard protocols over platform/product/language-specific protocols
> unless there is a compelling reason to use the proprietary
> protocol. (Hence my reservations about J/JS and MOM-based ESBs.) I
> also recommend simpler solutions over more complex solutions as long
> as they meet the requirements (e.g., POX wins over WS in situations
> where security, reliability, etc, aren't required).
Thanks for the clarification. I need to watch out for pigeon-holing
other people's positions and putting words into their mouths. I am
more mixed on these issues than my posts might lead someone to
believe.
I don't think there are a lot of easy answers at this point, and
getting a complete picture of options is difficult. I think
portability is more important than the level of attention it receives
in the SOA world, an open J/JS and MOM API at this point is more
capable than SOAP, and either way one should remain loosely coupled
from any of those choices through one's own simple abstractions for a
small number of message patterns. Meanwhile that whole REST/HTTP thing
is there waiting to be obeyed and taken advantage of.
-Patrick
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
