I was goinng to respond to Harry's responses made to Tomas and mine, but Tomas already responded and said everything I would have said: I agree with Tomas that I consider Service Broker a good match for applications with code only in the database, even though it supports more than code completly in the database (I made improper wording in my post indicating it did not) I agree with Tomas that there is a world of difference between "access a database" (99% of apps) vs. database-driven (see Tomas' definition). I said I tend away from these kinds of architectures these days as I see the power of domain-driven architectures (see Nilson). Obviously, there is no one architecture for every kind of problem I also don't get the whole "two types of service architects question" either and that a good architect will choose the right style for the right scenario I'd have to agree with Tomas again what Harry calls "Long running services" are really just a specific case of "Long running processes" and SSSB is too low-level for that. WF and BizTalk get me out of writing that infrastructure that is needed to be built out. But maybe I'm an idiot too and need to get hit with the clue stick as well Technorati Tags: SOA , Service Oriented Architecture , Windows Communication Foundation , Software Architecture , Windows Workflow Foundation , Microsoft Share this post: Email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! Read More...