Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> >> it's a little different. Jini is an old and I would say "fundamental >> technology" for service infrastructure in the java platform, very >> different from today's "SOA". >> >> I'll let someone else argue my point, as I have to go christmas >> shopping. If no one does, I'll do it when I get back. >> >> They are fundamentally different (and we always allow competing impls >> anyway...) >> > > I know and agree, but when the proposal starts off with: > > "Jini technology is a service oriented architecture that defines > a programming model which both exploits and extends Java technology > to enable the construction of secure, distributed systems...." > > then it's valid item, I think :) >
>From experience of evangelizing Jini I find each person's SOA definition to be different from another's and I have to argue/discuss on a case by case basis. So I kind of agree it's a valid item for discussion but given the above experience I really am not sure exactly how one provides an exhaustive/useful explanation to handle this discussion (in it's myriad of forms) in the proposal. I guess we could take the SOA reference model from OASIS as our working definition and work from there? Even then, I don't know that we can work around it - a core abstraction of Jini architecture is the service. Dan. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
