IBM's SOA seminar - A Construal

I had attended a seminar by IBM on Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) sometime last month and thought that I should share my comprehension on the points that I thought were interesting:

1. IBM mentioned that SOA was more suitable for migrating existing architectures rather than building new applications from scratch
2. Web Services Gateway can be used for routing; as an interface between a web services client and a legacy application that was being web enabled. Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) can be used as a broker and it appears to be a successor to the broker architecture.
3. An overview of BPEL4WS (Business Process Execution Language for Web Services) was provided. It is a language for business process modeling similar to collaborations in IBM WBI Interchange Server.
4. The site http://www.ws-i.org details the Web Services interoperability standards.
5. For transporting large volume of data, JMS queues could be used instead of HTTP for reliable delivery
6. Security aspects related to Web Services were touched upon and it was mentioned that standards present for HTTPS would possibly be adopted for Web Services
7. New tags such as would be present in the SOAP header to indicate if the SOAP envelope was signed
8. SOA Design Patterns and Anti-Patterns were discussed. Following are the details:

Patterns

1. Unified Logical View: Facade pattern - presents one service to the external world and routes the request internally to the appropriate subsystem
2. Adapters for legacy code - This is similar to the EAI adapters. Web services are exposed as adapters.
3. Composable components (BPEL) - Using BPEL, each process could be modeled as a task
   
4. Replaceable components - Develop components that are implementation independent

Anti-Patterns

1. SOAP over HTTP or XML should not be used within layers of an application
2. It should be used only when exposing a layer of the application to other applications

I would like to add a general disclaimer that the above points are according to my understanding, it is possible that I might have misinterpreted some of the points (but it is highly unlikely :)).