RE: Web Services contrasted with JCA

Mike,

This goes back to my comment that I had made very early on in Feb to the WG
that
this WG ought to come up with metrics against which we can say what is a WS
and
what is not. The WS definition is too broad and too high-level.
The WG should also be able to come up with guidelines that would suggest
the users/developers when to use a WS. If we have that, may be we can even
put the
discussions around REST-full and REST-less (ness?) and others :) in the
right
perspective and make progress.

Just my 2c.
Sandeep Kumar
Cisco Systems

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of Champion, Mike
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 6:39 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Web Services contrasted with JCA




In the spirit of Mark Baker's contribution on how web services differ from
REST, people might want to look at this article on how web services differ
from the Java Connection Architecture.

http://dev2dev.bea.com/articlesnews/discussion/thread.jsp?thread=552

"People kept asking about the difference between the J2EE Connector
Architecture (JCA) and Web services. They were interested in knowing what
the criteria should be for selecting one over the other. At first, I was
completely perplexed because the answer seemed obvious. But, after giving it
some thought, I can easily understand why confusion has started to seep in.
Vendors have done such a good job of marketing Web services as standardized
integration that companies and individuals have started to voice angst
because JCA is also pitched similarly. It naturally leads to the conclusion
that these technologies compete and conflict, right? Well, not exactly"

I think these kinds of things could be a useful component of the WSA
document -- it's easy to get confused about what web services really are
given all the marketing implying that they are the salve for all pain.