erl @ WSJ
Erl:
"Its popularity to date is largely the result of vendors advertising SOA support or capability as part of their product lines. Because SOA has been so vendor-driven, its meaning has been somewhat divergent, skewed by proprietary technology that is...identified with common characteristics that transcend proprietary boundaries."
and
"Vendors...have published numerous papers, blueprints, and even frameworks. Most such document serve the dual purpose of educating readers about SOA while marketing related products or services. This is nothing new...However, because a core expectation of SOA is its ability to harmonize and streamline diverse technical environments, preserving an abstract viewpoint is required to achieving its potential." (emphasis mine)
He talks a bit about Service Orientation (SO) and Object Orientation - they are tantamount in pursuing "separation of concerns," but with different approaches. In describing SO's approach, he describes 8 common principles of SO that should be considered and encouraged when designing systems on any platform, regardless of vendor/language. (Sun/J2EE, MS/.NET, Zend/PHP, etc)
I hate that vendors often prattle on about SOA without actually saying anything. But Erl may be too much on the other extreme - describing SOA in such idealistic technical terms that it escapes any relation to real down-to-earth, or in-the-trenches, programming. his first book was okay in providing example situations and scenarios, but he never seems to go into any run-time code detail, instead focusing only on the XML syntax of the various WS-* techs.
when I create my uber-l33t service-oriented system, I'll be sure to write an entire book/dissertation/case-study on it down to the code level. hopefully I will show the link between the SO common principles and the SO code. that is, as soon as I write and master the SO code. here's hoping...</div>
gates is losing his mind
being a dilatant is not necessarily a bad thing, but having a dilating business model is completely FUBAR.
in this interview (supposedly about Google, but mostly about whatever pops into Gates's head), Gates manages to one-line the following topics:
Google
software-as-a-service (almost web services)
open source
CRM
Voice Recognition
IPTV
I'd first like to talk about Google because I'm currently on the "honeymoon" WITH Google, and I like how our life-long relationship is starting.
Responding to the question, "Do you feel you're in competition with Google, Yahoo and other Web properties for developers' attention?"
Gates: "No, I don't think so. The architecture we are interested in we call server-equals-service, so that we will have the full Exchange capability that you can subscribe to, where we run it, or you can have it on-premise with the traditional licensing approach. At this conference, we do give out APIs (application programming interfaces) for the MSN Search and the MSN Virtual Earth capability, so things that have been cloud-based services, you can have client applications that other services can connect to. So, I'd say the evolution is server to service, and bringing that symmetry in."
in what I imagine could only have been about 10 seconds, Bill has moved from the topics of "web as a platform" and "developers' attention" to Microsoft Exchange Server. this is pretty formulaic of a Microsoft response to any question or comment relating to anything in the software industry that's NOT Microsoft - quickly and baselessly brush aside whatever meaningful question was asked, and then prattle on about Microsoft ______ XP like it's the answer to every question, meaningful or not. his innovative idea (which I guess he's trying to relate to "web-as-a-platform") is one in which you pay Microsoft to host the physical machine on which your Exchange server runs? I'm not an expert, but I think this kind of "virtual hosting" has been around at least since last year or so. also of interesting note is that the service-like API's to those MSN features were only just released last week.
this post is being cut short because some major news re: Microsoft hit while I was writing this, so I have to write the follow-up post now.</div>
CC == privatized law
I really only read the title of this article and was reminded of my recent trip to CC. I want to at least mention my perspective of CC as privatization of copyright law - an idea I've talked about before and fully support.
as I've stated in long-winded and inelegant terms, I think a repeal of copyright law is not only possible, but is the most sensible course of action. as a true minarchist-borderline-anarchist, I see the perfect replacement to be a system of voluntary contracts under which individuals release their creative works as an opt-in approach. by that I mean a person who creates content can select a contract, or license, to apply to their work which legally binds the other individuals who use the work, but if no license is applied, the default status of the work is public domain, rather than copyright. (the Mises article describes a method of privatizing law that enforces the licenses)
as such, I'm officially a creative commons fanboy. do they have a travel mug I can purchase? whatever their motivations are, the final product is, to me, the perfect voluntary, freely-usable, easily-understandable system of private contract licenses that enable people to distribute and consume goods under their most agreeable terms.
anything that enables productive human interaction sans force is great.</div>
more about open-source
now I'm not fishing for a job in Google's PR department, but I feel like Krzysztof Kowalczyk is really giving Google an un-merited hard time. I won't say that his stance is a usual one in the open-source community, because I know it really isn't. it just irks me when open-source advocates(Kowalczyk?) go about demonizing some of the most respectable, successful, and influential users of open-source. Google should be used a shining example of how powerful open-source is technically, and as a cultural movement.
as Adam says, Krzysztof's post essentially says that Google has a parasitic relationship with the open-source community because Google uses open-source technology without contributing back to the open-source pool. aside from the fact that Google does actively contribute to the general pool of open-source software, Krzysztof's accusation holds no merit for at least two other reasons.
1. Google has provided almost incalcuable value to every programmer in the world time and time again - all free of charge. just because Google's value is not delivered quid pro quo with "open source" proper, doesn't mean Google is parasitic. because...
2. the nature of open-source itself is a contribute-AND-prosper relationship with a fuzzy and wonderfully free middle - make it work however you can because you're free to do so. I personally think it is pricesly that dynamism, that absence of strict regimen in the exchange process, that makes open-source THE poster-child of the great new open culture that's cropping up in all economic and social spheres.
Google is one of the best examples of hugely successful symbiotic open-source production: Google takes open-source software, re-structures, re-factors, re-mixes it with their own creative juices (eww) and labor, then releases their results to everyone in an amazingly usable form.
I think for the most part, open-source developers love Google, and Google loves open-source. but I'd like to ask something of the open-source fairy as well...
just contribute and prosper without inventing artificial obligations or standards people must live up to in order to receive some mystical "blessing" from open-source developers. don't try to apply the meritocracy concept (which works damn well on the technical aspects) down into the very intentions and motivations of other participants.
for God's sake, don't even suggest a quantitative price tag level (10% of savings) a company must meet to redeem themselves of their profit-seeking sins. (the counterpost suggests "Do no evil" is a "refreshing" contrast to "corporate profits")
I know I nit-pick and criticize open-source too much, and hardly ever go the other way 'round, but that's because criticism is wasted and hopeless on the proprietary crowd. they'll just keep dismissing you as a communist - even to the point where you're rolling in shit-loads of what would have been THEIR money if they had changed their failing business model.
I jump on the open-source voices harshest because I already know how amazing open-source is, and can be. I hate to see it get into petty squabbling about insignificant things like "fairness" in exchange. it's like Mr. Gates issuing a press release to bitch about a papercut he received cashing his check.
---
edited aug 03 to correct Krzysztof Kowalczyk as the author of the post. sorry Michael.</div>
open source WS standards implementations
I love the way this article described standards development and open-source development:
"from the frying pan of standards adoption into the fire of open source implementation"
I'm hoping that this becomes a tried-and-true pattern for web service standards - major work in designing solid standards, and then handed over for open-source implementation. although I confess I don't really have any experience with the standards in question, nor have I even worked with Apache's other web service standards implementations. but I think I know enough about how Apache operates, and have enough excitement for web services to be "high" on the prospect of getting all kinds of open-source tools to integrate things.
but the dynamics of this kind of progress seem to have all the right components.
