"Dickson, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why re-solve in possibly incompatible ways problems that platform > and infrastructure vendors are already addressing?
Excellent question! There are too many interesting things to do to bother re-solving already solved problems. But... It was the general consensus that UDDI both provided too little of what we needed while at the same time providing way more than what we need. So instead of trying to move the UDDI consortium or the I3C consortium to do what we want them to do (before we understand what it is that we want to do), we're going to implement a nuts-and-bolts version of what we need as quickly as we can to test our ideas. Once we know what the crucial pieces are that are missing from UDDI, we can go back to them and explain why they should add what we need, together with the suggestion for implementing a UDDI::Lite that enables just those features that we need. Hope this fluffy discusion of the issues was useful. I'll let Brian or Mark weigh in with the technical details. Cheers, jas. _______________________________________________ Biojava-l mailing list - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://biojava.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l
