Alexander, That was a reasonably restrained reply to a rather abrupt and direct posting. Can we keep the personal chemistry out of this gentlemen, please, before someone loses their temper over technology (always a sad spectacle)?
Gervas Moderator --- In [email protected], "Alexander Johannesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/23/06, Steve Ross-Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > you clearly misunderstand. > > Glad we got that sorted out. :) > > > I expect you use Java or maybe C++ or somesuch. > > A lot of different somesuch, yes. > > > Do you have to understand Turing completness or lambda calculus to use > > them? Just because you drive a car doesn't mean you have to be a mechanic. > > Well, if you're a 50-year old suburbian who's on first-name with your > local mechanic, that's true. But is this the right metaphor for the > people on this list? I assume we're architects and developers, the > equivalent of mechanics and engineers in the car-world. > > I do have *some* understanding of both Turing completeness and > calculus, but I don't feel compelled to make my fellow developers > understand that to the same or higher degree than me to have a > meaningful discussion about SOA design. :) > > But the point was more that we were urged to take a serious look at > this, and the only link provided was to the PI-calculus open-source > tool, so it's pretty natural for me to start off in that direction. A > tool that uses PI-calculus to do WS-CDL suggests to me I need to dig > into both. > > > WS-CDL using the open source www.pi4soa.org tool suite which is itself > > using pi-calculus does not mean you have to understand it. We have a lot of > > people using it who have not got a clue about pi or lambda or any other sort of > > formalism. The plain fact is they don't need to know about that stuff. That is > > the whole point of WS-CDL and the tool suite. It uses the stuff but hides it from > > you and so delivers value. > > Hmm, as I've seen, the WS-CDL is somewhat married to formal calculus > (haven't checked the nitty-gritty details of PI-calculus, though) with > channels and guards and whatsnot. (The sentance "The Pi Calculus [...] > forms the basis for the W3C's WS-CDL" comes to mind here) WS-CDL is a > model (and abstraction) over more formal calculus solving of given > problems which no matter how much you fiddle on the syntax/model > layer, the underlying stuff always shines through. Which may or may > not be a good thing. Seriously, this isn't criticism of PI-calculus > per se, but as of now given it is the only open-source tool available > to do WS-CDL you would think they are connected. Maybe this is where > you jump in and explain exactly how the two fit together. > > Most of the time I reckon it's a good thing to have he underlying > concepts seep through to the model layer; you can teach a lot of old > dogs new tricks that way. Heck, if I was a tad smarter, I'd really > want to jump in there and try to understand PI-calculus; I reckognise > the problem and that this is a possible solution, no doubt, but as a > serious developer I *actually* want to understand how things work. > Sorry. :) > > The more I dig into WS-CDL, the more *I* have to understand (wheras > other people might not) certain basics from calculus, a field I've not > looked at for many years. I'm not saying this is a reasonable excuse, > but I assume it is one for most developers out there. It is a fairly > complex standard, unfinished as such. (And perhaps it's a shame you > haven't got the examples section ready; maybe that would take the > sting out of it) I'm a semantic modeller, and the first thing I do is > to try to understand that model, where it comes from and why it's > shaped the way it is. > > But hey, we can talk pure WS-CDL separated from it all as well; I'm flexible. > > > Rather than issue such a criticism I suggest that you try the tools > > out and then if you have an issue you are at least basing it on fact > > and not fiction, hearsay or the usual FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt). > > Hmm, what fact is it that I've fudged? Be careful about telling people > that they're lying; perception is a multi-facetted thing. > > > I look forward to a more factual response next time. > > I can sense that you're in defence-mode, so I'll just end with a few > personal factual observations that should be taken > tounge-somewhat-in-cheek ; > > - complexity : the WS-CDL specification tries to do it all through a > model and language which is new to me, meaning steep-learning curve > - model : as above; why that model? What's the justification? > - syntax : again, unfamiliar, possibly marred to the model. I come > from a Topic Maps world where there is a general model for all types > of relationships, roles, types and ontology stuff on top. Why not use > that? > - Cute name; where's the theme music? :) (yes, that's a joke) > > Anyways, there you go; it's not bashing of specifics at all, just > showing you *confusion*. > > > Alex > -- > "Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know." > - Frank Herbert > __ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________ > 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/
