One thing I'd say is that my challenge was around the "time-sync" piece which indicates that it must be complete with all referencable sources. That for me is the bit that is a bit too principle for me.
Steve 2008/11/25 Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > +1 on the principle vs. solution tradeoffs. I'm a big fan of > establishing "this is the way it is done unless there is a reasonable > reason not to." Of course the debate then turns to what's a > reasonable exception and what isn't. :-) > > Is there debate/disagreement on the merits of this principle? And > touching on Mark Baker's response, how much completeness is the right > amount? If the sender doesn't want to send why the prisoner is being > held, that's cool. But then for recipients that need that information > before taking some action, then the event is not complete in that > context. The classic trade-off between too much info to wade through > (message schemas run amok) vs. too little to be helpful (messages > requiring several other queries). > > When do we recognize that a principle might be too idealistic, that > adhering to its spirit will almost never be achieved in application? > I'm not saying this principle falls into this category necessarily. > Just wondering aloud... > > -Rob > > --- In [email protected], "jack541108" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> --- In [email protected], "Steve > Jones" >> <jones.steveg@> wrote: >> > >> > A little bit pie in the sky here, nice in theory but a killer in >> practice >> > >> >> It's all about the difference between architectural principles and >> solution architectures. Principles are guidance in ambiguous >> situations toward an ideal. A solution architecture holds the >> trade-off. Deviating from the principle must be motivated, adhere to >> the principle not. That's what enterprise architecture is about. >> >> -Jack >> > >
