• To: 'David Megginson' <dmeggin@a...>, XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: A question about REST and transaction isolation
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 09:44:11 -0600

"Stupid and easy usually wins" is the approach that seems to scale, but keep
in mind 
that the network effect is a double edged sword.  It scales the working
parts up but 
also just as effectively shares all the flaws and vulnerabilities of an
80/20 design.  

Closed systems have a history back to cave dwellers when clans formed and
lived 
together for mutual support and mutual defense, but to see something 
analogous to the current situation, one should look at the middle ages
during the 
plagues when those that could left the cities and formed closed enclaves to
save 
what they could of their own resources.  It didn't always work, but when it 
worked, the local effect was positive.

Who will walk away from 'stupid and easy' and embrace 'smart and reliable'?

I don't think the solution will come from those who embrace the network
effect 
only as a 'positive' but from those who understand the saying, 'as the twig
is bent, 
so grows the tree'.

len


From: David Megginson [mailto:dmeggin@a...]

Stupid-and-easy usually wins

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: A question about REST and transaction isolation
    • From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: A question about REST and transaction isolation
• Next by Date: Re: A question about REST and transaction isolation
• Previous by thread: RE: A question about REST and transaction isolation
• Next by thread: Re: A question about REST and transaction isolation
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread