Monthly Archives: February 2006


Sage advice from Patrick Logan; Simple dynamic programming languages and simple dynamic coordination languages are winning. Vendors will have to differentiate themselves on something more than wizards that mask complexity. On the upside, when most every other vendor is hocking snake oil, differentiation from those vendors isn’t hard. On the downside, as Patrick points out,… Read More »

Architecture *is* pragmatic

Now don’t get me wrong, I do appreciate the bevy of pro – or at least neutral – REST commentary in the recent discussion. But I just can’t get excited about the “moderate” conclusions such as this from Dare Obasanjo; If you know the target platform of the consumers of your service is going to… Read More »

Why all the WS Interop problems?

If you’d have asked me six or seven years ago – when this whole Web services things was kicking off – how things were likely to go with them, I would have said – and indeed, have said many times since – that they would fail to see widespread use on the Internet, as their… Read More »

Power laws

“So for ten-orders-of-magnitude-power-law-phenomena our candidates are: cosmology and the web. Are there any others?” Mind-blowing. (link) []

Understanding XML: Pragmatics

“REST folk […] appreciate schemas as much as the SOAP crowd does. We just don’t confuse the issue by putting method semantics into them.” Heh, yep. (link) []

REST invades Microsoft

Don Box gives us his two cents on a Microsoft-internal “REST vs. SOA(P)” debate; The following design decisions are orthogonal, even though people often conflate two or more of them: Whether one uses SOAP or POX (plain-old-XML). Whether or not one publishes an XML schema for their formats. Whether or not one generates static language… Read More »