… from
Bloglines
to
Rojo. I was recently thinking how far
behind the competition Bloglines has fallen, with nary an improvement since
being acquired. So when Rojo caught my eye yesterday with its
relevance
oriented features, that was enough for me.
What was most interesting about the transition was how seamless it was.
I merely provided Rojo the URI for my
Bloglines subscriptions,
hit “Import”, and voila! Need the ad-hoc exchange of information between
machines be any more
difficult
than that?
Tags:
web,
bloglines,
rojo.
A comment from Rob Sayre: “I think WS-Transfer is too hard to use for everyday devs, so I’m developing XML-RPC-WS-Tranfer” 8-)
(
link) [
del.icio.us/distobj]
“I think that we ought to be pouring resources and investment into tooling and developer support around simple XML/HTTP/REST technologies. You know, the standardized ones that work today.” +1!
(
link) [
del.icio.us/distobj]
“There are 48 different namespaces SMIL 2.1 elements and attributes can be in.” Ay carumba!
(
link) [
del.icio.us/distobj]
I think Jorgen
misses
part of the point of the
team comment
for WS-Transfer, when he writes;
The W3C Staff comments on WS-Transfer make interesting reading – and really summarize what WS-Transfer is all about: […] WS-Transfer does not have all the features of HTTP regarding the manipulation of representations, such as caching, or content and language negotiation. However, the extensibility of SOAP would allow to add such capabilities incrementally, and it can benefit from the use of existing SOAP extensions such as WS-Security for security, or WS-Reliability or WS-Reliable Messaging for reliability.
How can it be a good thing, that all those features were lost and
replaced with … wait for it … merely the opportunity to add
them back in the future?! Do these folks realize the amount of money
that’s been spent optimizing and deploying the Web, CDNs, and caching
infrastructure in general? You think people are eager to redeploy all
that? And for what, angle brackets?
Egads. Whether you believe in my position on Web services or not,
hopefully you can at least appreciate that reuse and not
reinvention is in everybody’s best interest. The authors of WS-Transfer
clearly don’t. There’s even
better ways
to use SOAP for data transfer, ferchrisakes!
I’m calling bullshit on WS-Transfer. Please join me.
P.S. here’s some
previous thoughts
on this mess, before the W3C submission, when I was obviously in a
much more agreeable mood. I guess I’m pissed off at the W3C for missing
yet another opportunity to set these wayward soles straight.
Update; Thanks, Simon.
Go, Mark. Even
Rob can’t help himself.
Kudos, Stefan.
Tags:
soap,
rest,
web,
webservices.
I was just about to blog about this, when I noticed Lucas already did it for me…
(
link) [
del.icio.us/distobj]
“I wonder if the editors have any more sense of how wrong this is than the authors?” Indeed, it seems like critical thinking and principled design has been sacrificed at the altar of SOA. Check your brains at the door, please!
(
link) [
del.icio.us/distobj]
If
Rob was right,
then this
spec
can only be an attempt by Microsoft to get the other co-submitters
to implement and deploy a protocol which is vastly inferior to HTTP.
Sounds too insidious to me. I think it’s just bad design.