[flukus]

> To me, SOA is more about the implementation-- especially the old WSDL-driven part.

That was one of the tragedies of SOA. The S was meant to be service as in windows service but it was co-opted to be service as in web service.

Had it been called Daemon Oriented Architecture things may have turned out differently.

The same thing is playing out now with micro services.

[geezerjay]

> The S was meant to be service as in windows service but it was co-opted to be service as in web service.

That assertion makes no sense as SOA is a software architecture approach and the communication between services has no impact on the system's architecture.

[flukus]

Communication between services has a huge impact on system architecture. A web service is an RPC mechanism, whether it's SOAP, REST, CORBA or whatever, it's nothing new and didn't need a new name. SOA was supposed to be message driven, usually through an ESB or something similar, MSMQ was popular at the time.