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

Re: Typing and paranoia

• To: XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Typing and paranoia
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:22:20 -0500
• References: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0212081224340.2205-100000@i...>
• User-agent: Opera M2 7.0 build 2345

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 12:43:17 -0500 (EST), Ian Graham <igraham@ic- unix.ic.utoronto.ca> 
 wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Tim Bray wrote:

>> There's a deep tension here that won't go away.  Some of us really REALLY 
>> want to be able to deal with the bits on the wire and REALLY like the 
>> open-ness and interoperability that gives us.

> Amen.
>
> I am currently working on a Web services implementation in a large
> financial services company. Other than performance (!) the main concern 
> of
> the team leads is finding the perfect tool that hides all XML knowledge
> behind:
>
> * an appropriate WSDL spec and schema (designed by a singularly talented
> and small group of 'experts')
> * a good code generator that produces framework-specific proxy and 
> template classes (e.g. Iona, Websphere, .NET, weblogic frameworks)
> * a good code development environment that embraces the corresponding services 
> framework (for use by the app. developers)

I'm not sure who or what you're blessing :-)  I doubt if Tim would agree
with you about hiding the XML behind toolkits, and even I -- infidel that
I am -- worry when this is done in the name of performance.

> On the other hand, I can be convinced that this choice actually makes 
> good
> business sense. The company doesn't want to be a technology company --
> that's not their business. They just want the stuff to work

Sigh.  I kindof hope that Paul Prescod is listening, because it's exactly 
this
point that keeps me from adopting RESTifarianism wholesale.  I wish I had
a good response.  I guess I could channel the RDBMS purists/zealots such
as C.J. Date and Fabian Pascal and point out that
those who develop systems without understanding the fundamentals are doomed
to a) be enslaved to the whims of their tool vendors; b) end up perpetually 
fighting fires because they won't learn how to turn off the gas; and c) 
fail.  On the other
hand, "good" systems such as the Internet and Web don't require developers
to understand the nasty details of TCP/IP or HTTP.  Perhaps this will 
happen with
XML too, but I personally doubt if it will happen until there is a good bit 
of refactoring
and simplification.  For example, I will be astonished if the average 
Office developer
can learn to use W3C XML Schema language effectively for documents.  I fear 
that
the complexity of all this will just encourage them to become thralls of 
the tools
in the name of "performance," "business sense", etc.

I personally think that the best *business* strategy is to make sure that 
you working with just those  bits of the Web and XML  infrastructure that 
they can understand and  develop with without necessarily
requiring the toolkits,  and choose toolkit vendors who automate the tedium 
rather than hiding the  architecture of the infrastructure.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Typing and paranoia
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Typing and paranoia
    • From: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@h...>
  • Re: Typing and paranoia
    • From: Ian Graham <igraham@i...>

• References:
  • Re: Typing and paranoia
    • From: Ian Graham <igraham@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Typing and paranoia
• Next by Date: Re: Typing and paranoia
• Previous by thread: Re: Typing and paranoia
• Next by thread: Re: Typing and paranoia
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread