[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>...
> The bit that other's opinions of something are
> more important than the vendor's statements
> is not only dumb, but flies directly in the
> face of how contracting actually works. I
> can consult the newspaper or even the Better
> Business Bureau and get opinions, but when it
> comes time to sign on the dotted line, I
> want the documents from the participating
> parties.
This argument leads to the same place that REST does. When you want to
know what services IBM offers, you ask IBM, not uddi.microsoft.com. *At
best* you treat information from uddi.microsoft.com as a *hint* and go
to IBM for the canonical stuff.
* http://www.blogstream.com/pauls/1034221895/index_html
But that's not how UDDI works.
> UDDI may not be the best player,
> but it does have the quality that what one
> asserts one must back up.
This is provably false. Do I need to register myself as a space tourism
business to prove this to you?
> ... Using Google,
> anyone can say anything about anyone or
> anything and that is far too easy to game.
If you believe everything you read on either Google or UDDI, I've got a
time share business I'll register.
Furthermore, all of this "you get what you pay for" stuff is pure FUD.
Who can I pay for quality information in a UDDI repository? Google is
free. UDDI is free. Yahoo is free. Meerkat is free. Three of the four
have proven themselves as solving real-world problems. One hasn't. There
are also many pay-to-play registries and there is certainly an important
role for them. Payment mechanism is totally orthogonal to REST, as is
signing.
But I don't know why I'm arguing this with you. Even most afficinados of
web services admit UDDI is a dead end. If you want to hold out hope for
it, please turn out the light when you leave.
Paul Prescod
|
