Absolutely, fit for purpose is an essential characteristic of a successful standard. A standard will not be widely adopted if it isn't.
However it's often the case that more than one proposal is fit for purpose. One might be technically better than another, one might be cheaper, one might have the support of market share leaders and therefore factors other than technology play a significant role in adoption. If anyone had the magic formula for getting something to become a standard, he or she could easily become rich. The fact is no one really knows how to do this, and no one really controls it. So it is not really possible to consider this an overall rational process, driven either by what's the best technical approach or by what the market share leaders want. One of the big arguments I used to get in promoting SOAP to CORBA folks was that HTTP was so inferior to IIOP technically. Yet HTTP is what has been adopted widely, and perhaps because of the popularity of the Web rather than its technical superiority or any market manipulation tactics. HTTP is there and you can't just say let's replace it with something better. This was the issue with BEEP for example, which proposed to resolve the HTTP problem with lack of sessions. I mean it was a good idea and a good spec, but there are so many factors to getting a standard established to the extent of HTTP that it seems to be to be pretty unlikely, whatever its merits or demerits, that we will see BEEP as the backbone of the Web any time soon. The fact that all major vendors support Web services is therefore remarkable and an important consideration, as Anne has noted. This could as easily not have happened as it did, for example CORBA and DCE. Eric --- Dan Creswell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Newcomer wrote: > > Gregg, > > > > I am not sure how long you have been working in > the > > industry, nor how familiar you are with the > standards > > process. so I am not sure whether or not you know > that > > the only true measure of success for a standard is > > widespread adoption. I can also tell you that > > This might be the only measure that a vendor cares > about because if they > have a product that implements the standard they are > in line to sell a > pile of boxes. > > But as an architect, I care about a bunch of other > issues - widespread > adoption might mean lots of tools to choose from etc > but one of the > things I _really_ care about is that it's fit for > purpose. And if I > don't think it's fit for purpose and yet it's widely > adopted I may be > forced to use it and compromise my systems as a > result. > > Widespread adoption could just be the result of a > large number of > naive/in-experienced engineers choosing to follow > the standard simply > because it's an easy move as their existing app > server supports it. > That wouldn't say anything about the quality or > appropriateness or > innovation embodied in this new standard would it? > > Of course, our industry is not full of naive, > in-experienced engineers - > couldn't be. Except the number of new programmers > each year clearly > outstrips the infrastructure to educate them. How > many graduates out of > university are ready for work? Don't we all accept > that they need > experience before they are effective? How many > businesses actively seek > to train their staff and ensure adequate resources > and mentors etc? > > So, sure your standard was a success but was it any > good? Did it > improve anything or did it make the same old > mistakes that've been made > before? If the same old people at the same old > vendors with the same > old products and the same old thinking produced > these new standards just > how much better and innovative might they be? > > My two cents, > > Dan. > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
