On 13 Jan 2007, at 22:28, Steve Jones wrote: > > As Anne points out, it's a standard in name only. > > Given that BPEL 1.1 wasn't really a standard and that BPEL 2.0 (the > first actual standard) hasn't made it to be a standard yet I think > this might be writing it off a little bit too soon.
Er, I think you just made my point more strongly. Watching the TC is a little like watching a divorced couple who continue to share a nice house. They hate each other, live separate lives and can only agree on the nice address. > Standards have a value, standards create markets "innovate, implement, standardise" is the most successful model > and while BPEL may, > or may not, be the execution standard that helps to create a more > active business process market there doesn't appear to be much else to > compete with it. I actually prefer pi-calculus such as W3C CDL, or SSDL, but any one of a number of proprietary solutions is going to be a much better bet - they've not been badly designed by committee. > Even a crap standard is better than nothing, Standards are agreements, and if they have commitment they have power often above the value of what is being agreed upon. But it's the agreement we're questioning. My advice, FWIW, is avoid it. > OLE was a great example of such a thing. OLE was a standard? Maybe you'd like to update this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActiveX -- http://blog.whatfettle.com -- http://blog.whatfettle.com
