[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
my beef with all of this is simple:
1. a belief in the necessity of anarchy. and most standards efforts are
directed against the intrusion of anarchy, rather than the utilisation
of it.
2. objection to commercial interests and marketing directing technical
direction. doesn't it worry anyone else that these standards are driven
by ibm, bea, microsoft, sun etc not prof this and dr that? that as a
result they can only be implemented at great cost by large teams in big
products, and everyday software developers have no hope?
3. not particularly committed to open source, but on average it has done
more good than bad for me.
4. my problem with microsoft is that it is as much a conservative force
slowing computing to a speed that it can exploit for maximum profit.
bill gates claims notwithstanding, i don't feel that computing is very
much advanced on where it was in the 80's. it's just more ubiquitous (is
that a tautology?)
5. i still develop lots of small interacting processes, even on the one
machine. distributed processing should just be an extra communication
layer, not a whole "new" way of doing things.
6 having said that the only bits of clear interest to me in the whole
ws-* group are 1. reliable messaging (in this case a rework of things
we've done a dozen times before), 2. reliable identification (also a
rework), 3. encryption for secure communications (also a rework).
and if you look at the bits that work and are starting to be used widely
it's just those things.
rick
On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 01:29, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> They push, we pull. Life among the mammals...
>
> I thought the idea of the WSIO was specifically
> to profile the working bits. If not, then why
> are they bothering?
>
> Yanno, the scary bit is a bit higher. When I
> first envisioned enterprise engineering (what
> we called service architectures in olden days),
> something about it was eerily familiar.
> The Tower of Babel is one myth, but more current
> is the Revenge of the Crimson Assurance from Monty
> Python's 'Meaning of Life'. Just as the level of
> organization and thought reaches some level, the
> process of attaining that level spawns a chaotic
> reaction low in the system that cascades up and
> overcomes the top level. Today we have communication
> systems that force cultures to collide, and just
> as we have attained that level of integrative thought,
> the forces of fundamentalist religion, the worst of
> the supercharged superstitious nut cases, are
> rising up. In the US, it is the right wing
> ultra-fundamentalist Christians. In the East,
> the Muslims. On the web, it is the open source guys
> who believe that the point of all of this is
> to collapse Microsoft and any organization they
> touch.
>
> Everywhere I look, the passions are rising. I'm
> not sure modern science has a fighting chance against
> those until they are slaked. It is as if as mammals,
> there is some enzyme we all share that gets invoked
> given some aggregate of signals from the environment,
> and we are helpless against it. Sort of like WWI.
>
> len
>
> From: David Megginson [mailto:dmeggin@attglobal.net]
>
> Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>
> > I don't think so. If this is a composable set of specifications,
> > it is a matter of the programmer not paving their own roads to
> > hell by putting together components that don't work. So the
> > WSIO profiles bear watching.
>
> The community has to discover ways to use things together through trial and
> error and then codify that experience for the benefit of others -- in my
> non-statistically-verified experience, the probability that a profile
> written in advance will be even slightly useful is in the single digits, so
> I see little point wasting my time reading one. A profile written in
> advance of serious, real-world experience is about as useful as a
> stockmarket prediction, a system for winning at slots, or CIA intelligence
> reports about WMD.
>
> Look, for example, at how the model 2 architecture evolved in J2EE after
> people realised that println statements in servlets were a lousy way to
> generate HTML and embedded code in JSPs was a lousy way to control program
> flow--in fact, look at how J2EE itself evolved. Java was originally intended
> for embedded devices, and then for interactive Web pages: I don't think that
> anyone saw it crapping out in those areas and becoming the dominant
> technology for server-side Web app development instead. However, since the
> Java language, JVM, and libraries are self-contained, well-designed building
> blocks, they adapted easily to the new niche.
>
> Ditto for XML. Remember the promise of XML in the browser, with stylesheet
> linking, client-side XSLT, XLink, XPointer, etc? Like Java, XML ended up
> moving to the other side of the firewall. The XML that did go client side,
> RSS, is not what any of us expected.
>
> I don't disagree that the profiles are useful; however, I want them to be
> like modern science, derived from experimentation and observation; what
> we're getting in this profiles reminds me more of alchemy.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
|
