Jason Bloomberg nails it (again!)

Jason on SCA: "This is more about vendor politics than it is about technology or architecture."

Good on ya, mate!  🙂

Note: The actual; quote in the article is "This is more about vendor politics and it is about technology or architecture." but that doesn't make much sense - I'm guessing he was misquoted.


Comments (4)

  1. Nick Malik says:

    Any relationship, in your mind, between SCA and Acropolis?


  2. John_Evdemon says:


    There is no direct relationship between SCA and Acropolis.  Acropolis does not support the SCA specs if that’s what you were asking.   There are, however, some conceptual similarities in that Acropolis and SCA both support the idea of “programming in the large”.    

    The fundamental difference to me is one of scope – Acropolis is focused on building an app while SCA focuses on a business process implementation that might touch multiple apps or services.   We could conceivably broaden the scope of Acropolis by using it to build something that gets exposed as a service, but that wasn’t the intent of Acropolis (at least it wasn’t the last time I looked at it).

    A more likely comparison might be to WF, except WF is more generic, being a developer framework (embedded in Acropolis, actually).   SCA also has many similarities to WCF:

    • SCA uses object-based components for service orientation
    • SCA uses service interfaces and properties defined in code with annotations
    • SCA generates of WSDL portTypes
    • SCA includes bindings for multiple protocols (not just SOAP)
    • SCA uses WS-* for security, reliability, transactions and policy

    The SCA specifications are largely Java-centric and (last time I looked) incomplete.  SCA is not part of the “official” Java stack because it was not developed through the usual JCP process.  This may be a sign of Java supporters recognizing the overly complex nature of the Java stack and taking steps to move away from it – Sun itself was not involved in SCA until July 2006.

    SCA is a baby-step – many people aren’t yet sure what to make of it.  

    I think there is a lot of interest in “programming in the large” – the vendor that gets this right is going to do very well.  

  3. Interesting perspective from Randy Heffner (Forrester) in the latest issue of Redmond Developer: Perhaps

Skip to main content