[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTut

• To: 'Ronald Bourret' <rpbourret@r...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 08:39:26 -0500

Sigh.. 

It is a good way for the customer to purchase based on a 
precise definition rather than a loose and unbounded 
requirement for which they have no FAT test.  We prefer 
to do business honestly, not by relying on buzz and 
open systems rant.

So MS is the Big Bad Wolf? Ok.  Consider another 
point of view:

The same open source environment that creates Linux 
creates Klez.  The web as a business medium is made 
more fragile and a risky investment because of it. Part 
of the slowing momentum for XML is because it is 
On The Web and The Web is getting a nasty reputation 
for overselling, underthinking, and simply being a 
bad place to do business.   Groups that need interoperation 
fast and reliably are starting to look for alternatives 
to open systems design.  Port 80 is too risky.

Viruses can be "killer apps".  An ecosystem does 
not need a single event (the Catastrophe) to 
collapse.  It only needs to drop below a critical threshold 
of reproductive momentum.  This can be because of a 
combination of events, eg, a perception that the 
web (and therefore web services) cannot be made 
reliable on the Web (although they can work fine 
if the public access is removed), and the proof 
that swapping virus code is making them too strong 
a threat to take the risk.  

At that point, just what the heck will the TAG 
be architecting?

len


From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@r...]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 
> Our customers really don't know much about XML.  It is a
> checkbox.  Again, if they do that, say yes and take their
> money.  If they say "NENA spec'd ANI/ALI using the XML
> format", it is money for value.

This is a great way to get rich but an appalling way to design good
software. Microsoft made a mint doing it, but also left us with horribly
difficult and badly designed languages such as COM and VB.

You decide which one you want.  

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
    • From: Dennis Sosnoski <dms@s...>
  • Re: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: DTDs, W3C Schemas, RELAX NG, Schematron?
• Next by Date: We're interested in your experiences with XML...
• Previous by thread: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Next by thread: Re: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread