W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2003

DISCUSSION Close - for now (was RE: Magic)

From: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:59:57 -0700
Message-ID: <BD52C6379806D51188DD00508BEEC96C012A109F@mail.contivo.com>
To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>, "Baker, Mark" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

Yes, please. Lets focus exclusively on the document.

The v1 document needs work. We focused the f2f to make progress against
that goal and I believe we made significant advances.

The continuous perma-thread has lost its ability to influence or inform
due to the overwhelming number of details that have been left dangling 
and not related to the work in progress. As the editors work on the
related sections of the document, I trust they will do their best to
harvest the salient ideas from there.

As Mark suggested earlier, there are other places for the discussion,
namely  www-ws@w3.org until we are ready to review the relevant sections
of the document.

Regards,
Dave Hollander
Co-Chair, WSA


-----Original Message-----
From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 8:57 AM
To: Baker, Mark
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Magic



Hi Mark,

No you don't! ;-)  I'm not going to!

But I do want to say one thing, and that is a sincere thanks.  You are
right, you have challenged me and taught me (and probably many others) a lot
of what you've learned.  Thanks also for the kind words about transactions.


As you acknowledged to Chris, though, many of us have understood by now.  So
I think it may be time to stop the lessons, and all of us get back to
working on the document.  Perhaps we can resume once we have completed at
least a "V1" draft.

Thanks again,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Baker, Mark 
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 2:33 PM
To: Newcomer, Eric
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Magic


I guess I have to respond to this ...

On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 08:27:22AM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> This is a very interesting response.  You do not allow for the possibility
that I (and presumably others) might understand but still disagree.  

Well, what can I say to that?

Most people here are experts in Intranet scale software systems, as I
was at one time too.  I've since spent about 7 years studying Internet
scale systems, and I now recognize how much harder they are to build
than Intranet scale ones (like, by at least an order of magnitude or
so - I learned CORBA inside-out in about a year, but I'm still learning
about the Web).

You are all here, it seems to me, because you don't see anything on the
Internet which resembles what you know a powerful distributed system to
look like.  There's a good reason for that; the Internet is a very
different place than an Intranet due primarily to one factor; there are
no trust boundaries on an Intranet, but an unbounded number on the
Internet (see Peter Deutsch's Fallacies).  I'm here, as an expert in
Internet scale systems, to say two things;

- "open interfaces" don't work here; never have, never will
- the Web can solve the problems that you're trying to solve

I'm sure everybody here has something to teach me, and indeed I have
learned things from yourself, Eric, about transactions.  I also learned
quite a few things while in the XML Protocol WG from folks like Henrik
Frystyk Nielsen, Noah Mendelsohn, and Stuart Williams (and others).  But
by that same measure, I too have things to teach, and I refuse to
apologize for that.

Thank you.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
  Actively seeking contract work or employment
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2003 12:00:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:19 GMT