tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post1933212057458600275..comments2007-07-19T21:11:46.541+01:00Mark Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15072917010265365428noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post-25986475946182091932007-07-18T11:03:00.000+01:002007-07-18T11:03:00.000+01:00Yes, tell him to RTFM ;-) although maybe TFM isn't good enough in this case?<BR/><BR/>It sounds like Microsoft productization folks could also do with talking to their development and standards people, because they know the issues well too. Good documentation should be making it explicit where you would and would not use WS-AT.Mark Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15072917010265365428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203557.post-29456520541902513192007-07-18T10:02:00.000+01:002007-07-18T10:02:00.000+01:00I agree that it is pretty obvious that WS-AT is not suitable for SOA <BR/>However, I think it is natural for issues to resurface when a new technology suddenly supports it (Microsoft's WCF in this case). Also I think it is important to explain what's the problem when someone who is considered a prominent figure (recognized by microsoft as <A HREF="http://www.microsoftregionaldirectors.com/profile.aspx?rd=1146" REL="nofollow">"one of the world's top .NET experts and industry leaders"</A>) <A HREF="http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=324141" REL="nofollow">claims</A> you should use ACID transactions in SOA as much as possible.<BR/>You are saying I should have sent him RTFM instead of explaining him wrong? oh well<BR/><BR/>ArnonArnon Rotem-Gal-Ozwww.rgoarchitects.comnoreply@blogger.com