Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Vendors such as IBM and Microsoft, in proposing the standards, were big, institutionalized companies trying to protect themselves, Bosworth said. “They were deliberately, in my opinion, making something hard,” he said, citing specifications such as Web Services ReliableMessaging.
He also endorsed the concept of tagging. “Tags are sloppy and informal but it works better than anything else out there,” Bosworth said.What does that mean?
What have I missed, is Google a small corporation all of a sudden? Is large based on head count, share price, total market capitalization, square footage of facilities, or the number of pending nuisense lawsuits?
Sorry, but isn't this a case of pot meet kettle?
Handling messaging in reliable manner isn't really difficult as much as it is a case of getting all of the details correct.
Sort of like 30X handling.
They should know what they are talking about though, they control up to 97% of all my search engine referals.
From [w3.org...]
Introduction.Web Services Addressing (WS-Addressing) defines two interoperable constructs that convey information that is typically provided by transport protocols and messaging systems. These constructs normalize this underlying information into a uniform format that can be processed independently of transport or application. The two constructs are endpoint references and message information headers.
My degree in Software Engineering and 10 years professional experience has absolutely no idea what that means.
Google is falling into the 'extremely silly' camp right about now. Is it possible that they simply do not realize that they themselves are one of these big corporations? They'll figure it out eventually I guess.
Always remember that Microsoft's motive are not altruistic...they are competitive and by being one of the main players establishing these standards...they are really doing what they have always done...protect their marketplace and attempt to lock down the future marketplace called ...WEB SERVICES... so that they can control the technology base...
The fact is there are better solutions available then their .net model...on the open source side...much more flexibility and interactivity/exchanging of data ...
SO in affect Microsoft is, once again, dumbing down the market to their level so they can control the variables...
This would be akin to how they locked up many OEM vendors with their software lisences... (Dell and others..)..
IBM... on the other hand...is more adept at Web Services and is actually looking at all models, I believe......
Once upon a time I worked for a Silicon Valley company that was gobbled up by Lotus then in turn was gobbled up by IBM. Each level of takeover resulted in an even higher level of "design by committee" which meant everything including the kitchen sink <aka BLOAT> was included to cover everyone's own peculiar needs and projects quickly bloated up like useless smelly dead fish on the shore.
Gone were the simple productive days of:
- Customers want project X
- Sit down and design X in a few days or a week
- Develop X in a couple of months and ship it before the competition and make lots of money
This turned into:
- Let's do an indepth analysis for the need of Project X
<weeks or months transpire>
- Let's hand pick the best cross-product corporate team to design Project X
<weeks or months transpire>
- Let's put this huge cross-product team at work designing Project X via teleconference, video conference, Lotus Notes and <gasp> email.
<more weeks or months or years transpire>
- Let's now put together a design REVIEW team to analyze what the design team came up with
<yet more weeks or months transpire>
- Have the GUI team build a prototype and do usability testing
<more weeks or months transpire>
- Now build the REAL product (the GUI team prototype was 100% throw away of course)
<more months or years or decades transpire>
and on and on and on and that's leaving out some steps....
We had people that facilitated all of these hourly/daily/weekly meetings who's only purpose in life and measure of success was if the current meeting resulted in a follow-up meeting - we referred to them affectionately as 'human speed bumps'.
By the time we shipped the product the operating system or even the computer platform it was built on was obsolete SO we start over :)
<and I bet you wondered what happened to Lotus 1-2-3, now you know>
OK, now insert into this process cross-platform cross-product cross-company meetings with HP, 3COM, APPLE, ADOBE and such and you can see how this nightmare can quickly balloon into bureaucracy of mammoth proportions.
If you're still with me, imagine that THIS corporate mentality now has control over web standards.
Do you have goosebumps yet?
You should, it's a scary movie.
"Do you have goosebumps yet?"
Standards, search, you name it. That's why I find it extremely ironic that the company that dominates the search market, and just had a 50 billion dollar IPO can't seem to realize that it is one of the big boys now. And the longer it's around, the more it will start looking like the scenario you painted. They will fight it, they will resist, they will try to keep the freedom and freshness, but they will fail, just like everyone has failed before them. IMO they've already failed, although they are still able to do decent innovation, but just wait a few years.
BINGO!
Been there done that, been in a nice small shop as well.
The small shop did far more with far less on little time.
There weren't five million "human speedbumps" to contend with.
The last "corp outfit" I worked for is at least 3 years late with a bet the farm project.
They keep restacking the shelves and then wonder why things never get done.
The one before that has outsourced, offshored, inhoused, and circled back again.
While I agree with the fellow in principal, it is riot considering what is calling who "big and bad".
But if folks would just break the thing down it is all the same and has been since day one, properly process an ordered bit stream.
Now I'll get down off my soapbox and go back to my cave to await the replacement of this mess with the next mess ;).
Do you have goosebumps yet?You should, it's a scary movie.
incrediBILL - You left out the marketing part and the lawyers. ;)
