[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Skonnard [mailto:aarons@develop.com]
> Sent: 10 June 2002 19:11
> To: 'Bill de hÓra'; 'Dare Obasanjo'; 'Rick Jelliffe';
> xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don
> Box
>
>
> > > If you're implying that individual organizations are playing
> > > politics, then of course I buy that but I find it hard to
> > > believe that representatives from individual organizations
> > > would have the skill to manipulate so many others.
> >
> > It's not that. Complexity naturally resists commodization. The
> > interdependencies make it hard for those with less
> resources to write
> > the code. In particular XML Schema processing is no joke to
> > implement...
> >
> > Bill de hÓra
>
> Agreed. Building distributed systems is not for the faint of
> heart. In the Web service space, we don't need the ad-hoc
> implementations you're alluding to. All major vendors that most
> distributed application developers care about have already
> stepped up to the plate.
Aaron,
You've generalized my understanding of XML Schema with distributed
systems. In any case this is really about middleware/eai and the
web banging into each other, not about distributed programming in
the large.
If the standards we have today for middleware are as a result of
innate difficulty of the problem space and the web is indeed
functionally trivial as opposed to simple, I put it that the major
vendors wouldn't dream of underwriting a port to the web, nor would
consumers push for it. The innate difficulty of middleware, and
specifically non-interoperability, has come in large order from the
vendors. If anything middleware vendors have being resisting web
technologies chomping away at their lunches for some time now, but
it appears to be a losing battle.
You mention all major vendors that most distributed application
developers care about are trying to square their systems with web
technologies. I'll take that shift as suggesting that much of the
difficulty in the past has been arbitrary enough. It's reasonable
to question whether this generation of WS standards are as simple
and well thought out as they could be. If they are then it's all
good, but appeals to vendor force don't make it so.
Bill de hÓra
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4
iQA/AwUBPQXvuOaWiFwg2CH4EQKo8QCfcLieCNLkxWehA7ercmEEdESUp7IAoMiE
dolWt/cNTyH4t9qLQG99bCfa
=viL5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
