I’m glad that you also see value in bringing more concreteness to the conversation using Business Components & Autonomous Components. Although I haven’t directly gotten into “Service Containers”, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on how they connect with the above components.

for the record, I am not versioning SOA even though I understand how this point came across. For me there is pretty much one what to do SOA (after all nobody ever came up with the concept OO 2.0). I was just trying to point out to a community of people that left Web Services technologies somewhere in 02, 03 or 04 (because Web Services technologies where iffy and pretty much a burden for what they were trying to achieve), that after 05 things have accelerated.

It is clear to me that we have available an Inter-Action oriented Asychronous Peer-to-Peer application model to do SOA. I don’t want to call that SOA 2.0, at best we were at SOA 0.5 in 2004 . If only we could focus the discussion on a programming model and avoid talking about general things all the time…

On another note, I like some of the ideas that you develop in this section: Business Components & Autonomous Components to the Rescue

Yes, Partition at the record level, rather than at the entity level (but the question still remains)

Yes, we clearly have “Service Containers”, “Services” and “Endpoints”. You could certainly introduce a certain form of cohesion for colocating services in the same Service Container (sharing similar QoS, native invocations between them…)

Yes, we should be very careful in not associating related aspects such as reporting and resource lifecycle under cohesive principles

JJ-

I recognise that helicopter picture

Jim