[news.eclipse.stp] Re: JBI instead of SCA Runtime

[adrian.mos@xxxxxxxx (Adrian Mos)]

Hi Mike,

Just to follow up on what Andrea replied on this topic, you can, depending 
on your needs, see SCA as a purely architectural specification space. In 
this case, and where you have existing JBI infrastructure of course, you 
can choose to generate further JBI artefacts but as Andrea said this is 
just an example, as other infrastructure can be used just as well. Of 
course you could have a complete SCA runtime, in which case you might be 
interested in directly specifying / generating the appropriate SCA 
artefacts. And in yet another scenario, you could have a hybrid SCA / JBI 
approach, such as the one defined by the SCOrWare project: 
http://www.scorware.org/projects/en

I would like to point out that STP-IM does not enforce SOA development 
practices, not does mandate  specific runtime configurations. It is 
primarily a practical approach to bridge different editors and platforms 
by having a common"bridge-like" approach for holding useful SOA elements 
together when moving between such editors / platforms.

Hope this helps,
cheers,
Adrian.

Michael Gebhart wrote:

> Hi,

> I've just read the sample scenario for the intermediate model and I am 
> wondering, why you chose a JBI runtime instead of the SCA runtime.

> When adding bindings to the SCA diagram and some implementation for the 
> components I get everything I need to run the services. If the SCA 
> runtime is not enough for this, why does SCA contain such features like 
> binding, implementation etc.?

> Maybe you can help me :)

> Greetings

> Michael