> Harm Smit wrote:
> > There are many differences between the ideal world and the real world.
> > The "8 fallacies of distributed computing" is one _expression_ of that
> > difference: you cannot ignore that networks break down and that
> > bandwidth isn't infinite.
> > But even in the ideal world there may be stringent behavioral contraints
> > of the kind "if you don't respond within the next 30 ms, the roof will
> > come down".
>
> I think that there something extra to add here. The 8 fallacies are real, and
> have caused some really ineffective designs of distributed systems.
You don't say? 8-)
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1681
> When I
> asked "Do I really care about which protocol", I really wanted to say "should I
> compromise my design to take advantage of a particular protocol".
I can see that you're still having trouble getting past the whole
"'protocol' = low level" thing. Data formats are protocols too; is it
bad for a system to pick one/some of those? Of course not. For all
systems, you have to pick protocols, preferably ones which are already
well deployed by the audience for that system, because to do otherwise
is to reduce the number of people able to use it. Whether that's
transport, transfer, or data format, picking one isn't bad, it's a
necessary for interoperation.
> I.e. as soon
> as I am dependent on transport/transfer, I've introduced the 9th fallacy,
> "Everyone speaks the same transport/transfer protocol as is hard coded in the
> application."
How is that a fallacy exactly? And how can agreement on
ever-increasing layers of a stack be bad?
Mark.
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.
