• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: Re: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• From: Francis Norton <francis@r...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:06:27 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...,"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• References: <KIICXUIEE095285966ZRNUSPLYTZU.3c7bfcf0@MChamp>
• Reply-to: francis@r...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2

Mike Champion wrote:

> 2/26/2002 3:01:31 PM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I've  got serious guys here who say tightly coupled 
>>web services are the way to go.  
>>
> 
> I'd be awfully curious to know the reasoning behind that.
> I thought that "tight coupling" was a famous design 
> anti-pattern, more or less antithetical to "modularity."
> Web services would seem to be that LAST place one
> would want to use tight coupling . 
> 
Perhaps they're confusing "tightly coupled" with "strongly typed" - similar sound, almost oppposite meaning?


Don't you hate it when useful terms suffer semantic rot... [OT - I've 
just been reading a 1956 detective story where the hero remembers 
"experimentally making love" to another student, and I'm honestly 
baffled - just when did that phrase start referring to sexual rather 
than social intercourse?]

Francis.

 

• References:
  • Re: RE: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: repeating element names in single XML vocabulary
• Next by Date: Re: XML to object relational
• Previous by thread: Re: RE: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Next by thread: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread