Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Is this part of the "worse is better... we should allow the web to fail" sort of thing, or are you relying on the maintainer to keep all internals oriented to your application? I don't mean that to be a mean question, but to point out where some of the problems of very large internetted apps and services are even if the tech works. I know this is frustrating. But there is a sense here of the unreliability and costs of web-based solutions precisely because of a technical approach that says it is ok to fail therefore, worse is better, yet on the other hand, requiring data sources that are free to access to provide perfect service. One can only commit assets based on the QOS numbers of the implementation and that means either humans do the work, or machines do. TANSTAAFL. Imagine web services for ASPs without QOS numbers. Part of the competitive edge will be the ability to sustain that service reliably. len -----Original Message----- From: Leigh Dodds [mailto:ldodds@i...] It's annoying and demoralising to invest a large amount of time abstracting useful information from this list, only to have it be undone by a lack of commitment to stable archive URLs. It undermines the usefulness in having an archive in the first place. Is there any chance that this will/can be remedied?
|
