[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>...
>
>>Business has friction because business should have a certain amount of
>>friction (e.g. accountants and auditors). Technology that adds
>>integration friction to the social friction is just overhead.
>
>
> Maybe. Sometimes it is worth slowing a process down, but that
> should be built in and not a side effect. Do remember the Thule
> Greenland incident in 1960. Had the process been running in
> machine time, North America and most of Europe and Asia would
> still be cinders. Humans should stay in the loop.
I agree. But as you say, it should be built-in and not a side effect of
poor technology choices. We shouldn't use 14.4 modems to slow down stock
traders, we should put in explicit breaks and maybe delays in the system
whcih cannot be "gamed" merely by upgrading the modem.
>
>>>It may be just as doable to lie to RPC, but it isn't
>>>as easy.
>>
>
>>Why not?
>
>
> Because setting up a web service takes a certain amount of
> savvy.
Not really. Not with the modern tools.
> .... Almost any idiot can build a web page and plant
> references to toss google a curve.
The people who do this seriously study it and have even built businesses
around it. Do you think that the difference between a URI and an RPC
call or between the ease of putting a page on IIS vs. using ASP are
going to slow them down?
>...
> Easy for thee. You are not the average bear. Obscurity is not
> security and difficulty won't always make things less likely,
> but likely to make things less likely. What the article
> showed was the ease with which one could game Google.
> At one point, it was suggested that what Discovery
> systems were proposed for (eg, UDDI), Google could do. Google
> can but the results are worth about what one pays for them.
There are a variety of reasons to dismiss Google as a discovery
mechanism *in some situations*. But if you are comparing to UDDI then
trust in the data is not a good reason. Anybody can send random data to
a UDDI server and in general that data is not vetted. (see
uddi.microsoft.com). I could register as an arms dealer for all the UDDI
engine knows or cares.
It would take your average Perl-programming system adminstrator fifteen
minutes to figure out how to game that system. Google is actually much
harder because Google aggregates and rates information from so many sources.
Sure, good registries may turn out to be pay-based services rather than
free. That has nothing to do with whether the centralized UDDI RPC model
is the right one. IMHO, it clearly isn't. The Web Services world needs a
trusted *search engine* and *registry*, not *repository*. Yahoo is
actually the best analogy.
Paul Prescod
|
