[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
>
>...
>
> Scalability worries me. Treating a WAN like a LAN worries me. Getting
> the scripters to not code too close the process of an individual
> desktop worries me. On the other hand, reliance on a global namespace
> has its perils too. The issue today is edge system integration; not
> understanding the philosophy of URI. That is corrupt on the face of
> it; it conveniently "webs" but the namespace as URI is corrosive.
Could you elucidate? I can't remember ever being a situation where
disconnected namespaces were preferable to unified ones (with decent
namespace management techniques!). The only advantage I can think of is
that disconnected namespace names can be textually shorter.
Paul Prescod
|
