As observed in the last post, Oracle and Gartner are getting all worked up about this thing called "SOA 2.0." Don't count rising star JBoss in that crowd, however. At least not its director of standards.
In response to talk about SOA 2.0, Mark Little says "I expected more of Oracle on this one! Giving an architectural approach a version number is crazy: it makes no sense at all!" (posted here at WebServices.Org).
Supposedly, SOA 1.0 is about client/server interactions, while SOA 2.0 is about event-driven architecture. "Where does it say that SOA is all about clients and servers?" Little asks. Plus, he adds, some event-driven systems have clients and servers, too.
Some readers have razzed the SOA 2.0 idea as well. JOrwell asked: "Why the decimal point? Does this imply we could later decide SOA 2.0 (or Web 2.0) is all a big mistake and we need to regress to, say, SOA 1.6?" (Come to think about it, what was Web 1.8 all about?)
Justin James added, "If you saw, say, 'Crummy Movie' and it stunk, would you go see 'Crummy Movie 2'? NO." (Yes, there never was a "Waterworld 2," but that doesn't explain the Batman or Police Academy sequels.)