On 12/12/06, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 12/12/06, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As in anyone who deals with Wallmart in the US, Carrefour in France > > and Tesco in the UK. Any aerospace manufacturer who works with Boeing > > or Airbus, any car parts manufacturer who works with Toyota, any... > > well you get the idea. > > Hence "some kinds of partnerships", such as those with a dominant > player. Partnerships of peers tend to be more loosely coupled because > neither party is interested in adding proprietary hooks to the other > guy.
A few business examples would help me here, I'm struggling to think of many , not so much in terms of proprietary hooks from a technology perspective but legal and inertia hooks from a business perspective. > > > How can something be a united whole and yet loosely coupled? > > The Web, for example. It's loosely coupled for all the reasons I've > given, yet a united whole (heck, it's a proper noun!). chaos and oblivion are nouns (sometimes proper nouns in fact) and Iraq is a proper noun I'm not sure that is an argument... its hard to say loosely coupled about a system where the vast majority of pieces aren't in fact coupled at all, certainly not at a business level. > > Reminds me of that book, "Small Pieces Loosely Joined"; > > http://www.smallpieces.com > > Mark. >
