Eric Newcomer wrote:
> Absolutely, fit for purpose is an essential
> characteristic of a successful standard. A standard
> will not be widely adopted if it isn't.
>
Sorry, Eric that's not what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that in our
inverted industry where vendors and analysts are deemed the experts that
a successful standard has nothing at all to do with fit for purpose in
many cases.
> 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.
>
Yep, VHS vs Betamax
> 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.
And is that a good thing? Real improvement stifled by legacy?
>
> 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.
>
Ah, but Web Services is a great way for all those vendors to re-spin
existing technology and make more money out of it. Once I remove the
XML cover, just how different is the tech underneath? From where I
stand it looks like JMS, RPC etc all over again.
And unlike previous changes, incorporating XML into these technologies
is relatively easy and thus all the vendors did it whereas previously
some of them wouldn't be able to jump the gap. Cheap to implement, big
bucks to make on existing tech - sounds like a winner.
Dan.
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/
