Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 13:48 12/01/2002 -0500, Mike Champion wrote: >My proposed answer is much like my recent reply to >Al Snell about the upfront design vs incremental >evolution: If you have well-known and stable >requirements and some way to enforce compliance, >"declarative, testable architectures" designed up >front will lead to success; if you don't, something >more like extreme programming / well-formed XML / >procedural scripting will tend to be more pragmatic. We have enough history behind us to know that stable requirements and compliance enforcement capability are in short supply out there. Nature figured this out long before we sentients did. Extreme programming/well-formed XML/ procedural scripting is a good toolset to start with to mimic natures ability to grow complex order out of large assemblies of simple interactions. In nature, powerful functionality emerges from the bottom up. The queen in the ant hill is not a monarch. There is no "top down management" and the functionality did not emerge from a top down design. This is the really interesting about the connectness inherent in what people call "web services". We will build 'em small and put them out there. We will not know - because we cannot know - how the services we build will be inter-connected. The results will surprise, delight and terrify us in equal measure. Treasure simplicity, keep module interactions local, facility interconnection. That is all we need to do. Nature will do the rest. Sean
|
