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

RE: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing

• To: "'Andrew S. Townley'" <andrew.townley@b...>
• Subject: RE: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:05:08 -0600
• Cc: adasal <adam.saltiel@g...>, xml-dev@l...

We've learned certain best practices.  The tough bit 
are the contexts of application and elicitation.  
What makes perfect sense for the network isn't good 
enough at the application layer. 

Start here:

1. Parsimony:  Dare to do less. (Tim Bray)  
   This one never fails.

See Grice's Maxims for a more complete methodology.

2. Complicated things that work are 
   usually made of simple things that worked.

Follow-on to Parsimony.  See Extreme Programming. 
The problem is lots of simple things work but not 
all of them aggregate.  Choose wisely.

3. Be strict in what you send and lax in what 
   you accept.

A good idea but it makes you the garbage collector 
and you are always searching for signal.  Learn to 
say no and keep records of that decision.  The 
affordance of discovery is not a commitment to 
negotiate.

Ok, it's aphorism thread time. Anyone care to add ones  
you assert apply anywhere in the system rather than work 
at one layer and fail at the next?   I won't be surprised 
if the only one left standing is Maxim 1 above followed 
by "Nothing is certain." aka, the empty set is the 
universal set.

len


From: Andrew S. Townley [mailto:andrew.townley@b...]

I'm not sure what the best solution is.  I think we're a bit out
numbered...

• Prev by Date: RE: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
• Next by Date: RE: Bulk XSD validation in Java
• Previous by thread: Re: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
• Next by thread: RE: Did Documents Win? No. Objects Just Couldn't GetTheir Act Together.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread