On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 05:31, Nick Gall <[email protected]> wrote: > My point is that in common usage, "integration" is rarely pejorative and > usually connotes the concept of being designed to work together from the > start -- NOT retrofitting the ability to work together.
As someone who's spent 14 years in companies doing integration, I'd say you live in a fantasy world. :) Integration projects are often very messy things, so even if the pipe-dream of everything being designed to work together from the get go is there, it is very far from reality. Besides, are you trusting sales materials from BMW more than integration practitioners? > Rather than expect > everyone to intuit your interpretation of "integration", why not just modify > it with an adjective like "ad hoc" or "post hoc" to be clear, ie "ad hoc > integration". Because it ain't used that way? :) Whenever anyone say "we need to integrate our system with this other system" people shiver and sweat and hope that they're not part of that project, because down that path lies madness, ad-hoc or not. Perhaps a bit overstated, but "integration" is not a feel-good word (in my world of enterprise consultancy services). regards, Alex -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps ------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
