“We need to re-think the entire naming infrastructure of the internet” Has the time come for decentralized naming?
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

Happy 100th Mr. Godel!
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

Tony Byrne picks up the meme, heh.
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

“There’s no real definition of SOA, but really it’s just about building successful distributed apps.” So if your SOA project fails, it wasn’t an SOA project after all. Heh, nice one, Dave. 8-)
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

“But, if SOA really is so abstract and elusive, what else is there? What’s the alternative?” (in my best Horshack voice) Oh-oh-oh-oh!
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

“Social networks have personalities and demographics, so there are always going to be more than one, and if there are always going to be more than one then the successful ones will learn about the benefits of interoperability”
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

In response to
Tim Bray’s piece calling bullshit on SOA,
Loek Bakker
responded with some comments that get right to the heart of the matter, IMO;

WS-* services and REST services are not competing, they are complementary. Web Style serves another purpose than SOA. Consumer-facing services have other QoS requirements than high-volume, cross-platform A2A transaction services.

That’s really interesting from my POV because it shows that
after many years of a debate, that we – the Web folks – still
haven’t successfully gotten our message across.

That message? That these services are competitive.

It’s as
Sean says
(channeling some unnamed prophet);

A complex system that works invariably can be traced back to a simple system that worked

Meaning, in this context, that if you want to build something
suitable for “high-volume, cross-platform A2A transactions”, start
with the Web and
build up.
Web services don’t do that; they strayed from that the
they confused
transfer with transport.


Yes, that’s my
address. Apparently, a lot of people disagree.

I get a handful of “To initiate the process for resetting the password”
emails a week, initiated by M Bakers who’ve forgotten their account names.
I also receive a surprising number of emails to other M Bakers. In fact,
last week some one of them tried to forward something to his own gmail
and missed! Dude!

And just now, I got a USPS shipping service notification to a Michael
Baker from somebody who probably guessed an email address. Sigh.

Two years ago this past weekend, I thought I was lucky to get one of the first
non-Google-employee accounts, and to have pretty much free-reign in picking my
account name. Alas, ease of rememberance is not without its costs. Oh
well, at least I’m learning new stuff… like how to organize a
bachelorette (I had no idea!).

Dave Linthicum

With lack of interest in UDDI there seems to be a need for another directory standard to come up and take its place.


As I
previously pointed out,
directory standards simply aren’t required because we have the Web. But
whether or not you buy the “Web for machine-to-machine integration” position,
I think it’s pretty clear that because UDDI registries were accessed primarily
by humans and not automata, that it was directly competitive with the
HTML-based Web.

And that’s exactly what we saw happen; there was the emergence of non-UDDI
registries such as
which primarily presented an HTML/HTTP interface, but more interestingly, we
saw the UDDI registries themselves being used almost exclusively (from what
I heard) through their HTML/HTTP interface.

So what will happen when automata want to start doing
actual dynamic discovery and integration, and we need more than
plain old HTML? Will they incorporate the lessons from UDDI? Will they
try to reinvent it? Or is a centralized registry, or some component thereof,
even necessary?

I hear
Phil Windley
has some ideas
in this space.
In fact, he and a student of his, Tom Warne, will be
this work on my
Dev track
in Edinburgh next month. If this interests you, we’d love to see you there.


Very funny. WS-Bashing’s all the rage, it seems.
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]