Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
From: Amy Lewis [mailto:amyzing@t...] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:54 PM > So: sometimes it makes sense to have silly-little-services > that aren't terribly exciting by themselves ... because one > can foresee that they will get aggregated. > > Amy! I think this is a good point. And, in a way, I think it's related to the point that Len made in http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200201/msg00443.html, except that he was talking about "how do you define ROI ($$$ vs. usefulness)", and now we're talking about "how do you define Best Practice (scalability vs. usefulness)". Most of the Best Practices put forth so far have been concerned with scalability-type issues, whereas sometimes you're more interested in the function than in the speed and/or scalability. (I would say that #6 in http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200201/msg00438.html is the only one that isn't related to scalability.) So maybe, when the Best Practices are published, they should have that point emphasized? i.e., "when we say 'stay away from fine grained RPC services', this is for scalability reasons, and not for design reasons". David Hunter Senior Architect ViaFone Inc. david.hunter@m... http://www.mobileq.com
|
