On 11/12/06, Alexander Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 12/12/06, Stefan Tilkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I can't recall whether somebody else did, but I never claimed there > > was no need for documentation. I just argued that IMO, machine- > > readable documentation is not as crucial as you seem to believe. > > Friggin' Amen to that! I realise that there's a dream of having fully > automatic systems that from when you switch them on, they talk to > eachother and create prosperous business all by themselves, Only from crack peddling vendors... the idea is to not be coding EVERYTHING in the same way as people would say you are nuts if you wanted to do memory allocation manually today.
> but I'm a > bit stumped to why some believe this is what the WS-* stack is all > about. What exactly is it in terms of automata the WS-* gives us? > > Can we now change this around? Steve, can you explain to us what you > *gain* by going the other way? For example, how easy is it for you to > GET a resource? How easy is it to PUT an invoice in? Very easy? If I've got the WSDL then I can have a test client _running_ in a minute or less. > How easy is it > for you to have an encrypted message put on a stack three layers deep > in someone's SOA? If I knew what this sentence meant I'd have a crack at answering it. The "three layers deep" bit is what is confusing me, as is the "someone's" which sort of implys that its owned by an independent third party. Could you clarify? > > Alex > -- > "Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know." > - Frank Herbert > __ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________ >
