• To: "'michael.h.kay@n...'" <michael.h.kay@n...>, "'Steven R. Newcomb'" <srn@c...>, 'Lars Marius Garshol' <larsga@g...>
• Subject: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:28:14 -0600
• Cc: 'xml-dev' <xml-dev@l...>

Ummm... why is that so inappropriate?  It seems to 
describe what they are there to define:  a 
means/form to define one's own architecture 
of associations among application languages.

Maybe understanding matters too and some things 
aren't easily understood with a quick glance. Perhaps  
tha is why we have too many web magic words 
and XML myths.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:michael.h.kay@n...]

> > | To this day, nobody has explained what's so unattractive about the
> > | AF paradigm, or the precise nature of the esthetics that found the
> > | AF solution "ugly".

I've always said that the main barrier to adoption of "architectural forms"
has been the ludicrously inappropriate name for the concept. Names matter.

• Prev by Date: [xmlstds] Release Announcement
• Next by Date: RE: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented vs action-oriented
• Previous by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: RE: bioinformatics, XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread