>> Design by committee does not work
PL/I??? I was specifically comparing to IETF working groups, the groups
that have brought us things like SMTP, IMAP4, MIME, DNS, IPv4 & v6, RADIUS,
routing, etc... the bread and butter of the internet and connected things.
Anyone who participates on a working group's list knows what it means to be
listened to, responded to, etc. The best think about the groups are that
they consist of industry and academic folk together.
Take IMAP4... there's the main man Crispin from University of Washington,
referrals (clustering) designed by Mike Gahrns at Microsoft, namespaces
co-authored by Gahrns again and Chris Newman at Innosoft, UIDPLUS for
disconnected clients by the renowned John Myers now at Netscape, and ACL's
by Myers back at Carnegie Mellon, the IDLE command by Barry Leiba at IBM's
Watson Research Center, etc, etc...
I am just making an observation that everyone new to this list makes the
mistake of thinking that this list is like an IETF working group. But the
reality is that it's a place for us to chat amongst ourselves. There are of
course occaisonal comments from Sun employees, along the lines of "we don't
use XML attributes because...". Fill in your own blank. My fill in goes
like this: "... because the NetD team wants..."
Oh, by the way Emmanuel, I forgot to say that I see gist of your proposal
(not getting into specifics) as "obviously correct". My team has already
done parsing work with the 1.1 draft DTD, and it's just dumb the way
attributes aren't being validated, defaulted, etc. But if the DTD is good
enough for the guy writing NetD's parser, we'll all probably survive with
it.
David
Ian McCallion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 06/08/99 01:43:19 AM
Please respond to A mailing list for Enterprise JavaBeans development
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: David Rauschenbach/ZLAND)
Subject: Re: Proposition for changing the EJB DTD(was: Re: EJB1.1 XML
extensibility)
David Rauschenbach wrote:
> Take their silence as "your opinion has been noted." Keep
> in mind this is not like an IETF working group or
> anything, where everyone helps. They don't give a c***
> about you. They have an EJB server of their own to ship,
> and that's probably where their head is at.
I think this is unfair. Design by committee does not work, at least not
well enough. Who remembers PL/I which was to take over from COBOL, or OSI
with its 7 layer communications protocol stack, blown away by good enough
TCP/IP? Even CORBA, dare I say it, needs Java to save it.
And if Sun really had their own server primarily in mind when designing
EJB, how come NetDynamics is an also-ran instead of a market leader?
We all love Java. If it needs a few people (me included) to feel their
ideas aren't being taken into account properly in order to make Java a
success so be it. At least the way Sun is doing it is better than the old
IBM way, or the current you-know-who way.**
Ian McCallion
CICS Business Unit
IBM Hursley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: ++44-1962-818065
Fax: ++44-1962-818069
** These opinions are mine and not those of my employer
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
