“Globally distributed SOA seems to be looming out of the mist, and it is a different shape to what was envisioned a few years back.” Envisioned by some perhaps 8-)
“Me, I blame WSDL and XSD”. Amen. Both of those encourage practices which are actively harmful to integration; WSDL encourages services to have different interfaces, and XSD limits extensibility (unless you really know what you’re doing).
“You can do a lot with collections + CRUD” 8-)
“The Evans Data survey found a 37% increase in respondents implementing or considering REST, with one out of four surveyed saying that they are considering REST-Based Web Services as a simpler alternative to SOAP-based services.”
Norm finally picks a side… the right one, as it turns out 8-)
… and shows a lack of understanding of REST and Web style services. Sounds like they could do with another co-CTO (Tim?) 8-)
“I suggest they roll some heads and figure out a real product strategy” Heh. Who couldn’t see that one coming? If I were them, I’d be be giving AOL a call.
“RDF categorically *does not solve* this problem. It *mitigates* it, on the belief that we will tend to see less model theories than formats flying around.”. Heh, +1. Of course, I think we will see less model theories.
I was looking through the scriptaculous drag-and-drop pages tonight, and stumbled upon this markup/script snippet;
<draggable id="photo1" revert="true"> <img src="..." /> </draggable>
I’ve just got drag working right now. Drop will be a little trickier, because I’ve got to decide whether I want to setup something like an “onDrop” handler (pro: powerful, con: powerful), or whether I can define some canned droppable types, like a shopping cart, or a file uploader, etc.. Perhaps both?
An important, nay, foundational part of my mental model for how Internet scale systems work (and many other things, in fact), is that I view standards as axioms.
In linear algebra, there’s the concept of span, which is, effectively, a function that takes a set of vectors as input, and yields the vector space spanned by those vectors; the set of all reachable points. Also, for any given vector space you can find a set of axioms – a minimal set of vectors which are linearly independent of each other (orthogonal), but still span the space (note; I use “axioms” here to refer to a normalized set of basis vectors).
So given, say, HTTP and URIs as axioms (because they’re independent), I can picture the space reachable using those axioms, which is the set of all tasks that can be coordinated without any additional (beyond the axioms) a priori agreement; in this case, the ability to exchange data between untrusted parties over the Internet. I can also easily add other axioms to the fold and envision how the space expands, so I can understand what adding the new axiom buys me. For example, I can understand what adding RDF to the Web gives me.
More interestingly (though far more difficult – entropy sucks), I can work backwards by imagining how I want the space to look, then figure out what axiom – what new pervasively deployed standard – would give me the desired result.
As mentioned, I try to evaluate many things this way, and at least where I know enough to be able to (even roughly) identify the axioms. It’s why Web services first set off my bunk-o-meter, because treating HTTP as a transport protocol is akin to replacing my HTTP axiom with a TCP axiom, which severely shrinks the set of possible things that can be coordinated … to the empty set, in fact. Oops!