So Patrick - yes, by all means continue the argument. I understand your view and your preference. However that doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you, which I hope is ok with you as it would be with those who take a different viewpoint, understanding that you do not agree with them.
The very simple point is that - as we can clearly see on this list - there are different views and preferences on this question of "how best to develop a service." I do not think you would like to be forced to develop them the way someone else would prefer, and by the same token I do not think others who prefer another approach would like to be forced to take yours.
So Amazon does the sensible thing - allow each type of developer to do it as he or she prefers.
If you have an argument against that, it seems that it is an argument for one approach versus the other, which to me just proves the point that we are not going to get agreement among everyone. If we did there would not be any argument. But there is an argument, there are different views and preferences, and by not recognizing and dealing with this fact we are not helping anything.
I certainly will not ask or expect you to agree with folks who prefer the WS-* approach, but I would at least expect you to acknowledge their existence, since without them you would have no one to argue with!
Eric
----- Original Message ----
From: patrickdlogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:45:15 AM
Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: an SOA in practice
> The point is not satisfying or not - it is not a "one size fits all
> world." As Mark points out he prefers one way. Others prefer
> another. You can argue endlessly (as people have, do, and will)
> about whether one preference is "right" or "better" somehow than
> another, or you can just be practical, like Amazon (apparently at
> least) and provide both.
Arguing on this list is one thing. I would not want to argue endlessly
in my organization, but neither would I want to provide both. I don't
see that as practical at all if one approach would work.
Clearly those that provide both demostrate that either could work with
some amount of effort, so then the point is to choose one. But only
one works with the majority of languages, tools, and existing adopted
standards and knowledge. It ain't WS-* so there seems to be no
practical reason to go down that path.
-Patrick
----- Original Message ----
From: patrickdlogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:45:15 AM
Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: an SOA in practice
> The point is not satisfying or not - it is not a "one size fits all
> world." As Mark points out he prefers one way. Others prefer
> another. You can argue endlessly (as people have, do, and will)
> about whether one preference is "right" or "better" somehow than
> another, or you can just be practical, like Amazon (apparently at
> least) and provide both.
Arguing on this list is one thing. I would not want to argue endlessly
in my organization, but neither would I want to provide both. I don't
see that as practical at all if one approach would work.
Clearly those that provide both demostrate that either could work with
some amount of effort, so then the point is to choose one. But only
one works with the majority of languages, tools, and existing adopted
standards and knowledge. It ain't WS-* so there seems to be no
practical reason to go down that path.
-Patrick
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
SPONSORED LINKS
| Computer software | Computer aided design software | Computer job |
| Soa | Service-oriented architecture |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
