Why UDDI Will Work 81
Tim Smith of The Stencil Group pointed out a white paper that The Stencil Group put together concerning UDDI [?] . With UDDI's six month birtday, they say that it's building momentum, and postulate about why it will work in the end. Check out UDDI.org for other information as well.
happy birt day. (Score:1)
Still looking for anonymous butt sex (Score:1)
Re:WTF?? (Score:1)
It could also be argued that
redundant (Score:1)
Everything2 Is Stupid (Score:1)
Tim Smith of The Stencil Group pointed out a white paper that The Stencil Group put together concerning UDDI[?] [zooass.com].
Please stop linking to that damn "Everything2" site of yours. It's bloody slow, and by following a few node links, the site tried to convince me that there was something wrong with a white guy being attracted to Asian girls. I'm a white guy who likes Asian girls, and there's nothing wrong with it. They're not as likely to judge me like white girls, and they don't wear too much makeup or shave parts of their eyebrows or do other stupid white-girl things.
Besides, Everything2 is far from an encyclopedia. That link taught me next to nothing about UDDI.
I'll be seeing some Chinese cuties at my night school class on Thursday, and if I find myself looking at them differently this time, I will never forgive you fuckers. EVERYTHING2 SUCKS, AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH A WHITE GUY LIKING ASIAN GIRLS!!
Please moderate to "-1, Troll" now.
I am truly sorry, Mr. Malda.
UDDI will never work (Score:2)
All in all, this adds up to trouble for UDDI. So it's just had its "six month birthday?" Excellent; I give it another six months.
So will I... (Score:2)
Here's my advice:
Get more.
Re:WTF?? (Score:1)
Oh, and by the way: what do you call a suggestion to raise the bar of "Slashdot Journalism"? Troll, of course!
For bonus points, why is it a troll? Because "Slashdot Journalism" is a made-up phrase; it doesn't exist! Therefore, anyone who mentions it is obviously trolling.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:WTF?? (Score:1)
However: download PDF files? Bah. And they call themselves "on the web". In my day, we had HTML documents. And content that wasn't marketing gibberish...
pb is obviously an old, crotchety websurfer, from 1994. (and a BBSer before that...)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Wow! UDDI! It all comes down to OOP and it sucks. (Score:2)
Yes! I've been dying for another buzzword technology! XML was starting to lose it's effect!
Really. What are people thinking? All of this crap is based on an object oriented programming (OOP) ideal, at their core.
If you operate on the principle that OOP sucks (ie, is for shitheads), then every structure built on top of it is also going to suck by definition, not including it's own inherent suck properties.
It's truly mind boggling. I'm amazed at the industry support behind OOP, and further amazed at the support it has in Academia. What (self respecting) computer scientists take OOP seriously? I'm really curious here.
On one hand, modularization is good. Take UNIX, for example. Implementing common reusable routines that communicate hardware or complex networking protocols is helpful! But at the same time, it could hurt if it's interfaces are poorly developed (see Win32 API for an example). UNIX's modularity allows me to not have to write complicated device drivers and networking protocols just to say "Hello, world!" over network. On the other hand, the terrible interface to something like libjpeg, or PHP sessions, makes me want to pull my hair out and just implement it myself. Sure, OOP sounds good in concept, but most people are too fucktarded to make it work. Therefore, it saves us nothing at best and hurts us at the worst.
Friends don't let friends abstract everything away behind objects/methods.
Of course, UDDI will only be considered a failure if it doesn't make it's supporters a ton of money. Not if it makes for better software (quality? oh, yeah. sure).
Re:Wow! UDDI! It all comes down to OOP and it suck (Score:2)
Oy! That was a mistake. Does it help if I retract "Object Oriented Programming" and instead change it to "Object Oriented Paradigm"? Basic OOP concepts are fine and dandy. My gripe is with the drive to componentalize everything. OOP is just the face it's wearing.
Get a clue. The Win32 API is not OO. The term "spaghetti" comes to mind.
That was a case where components work. Where it's worth dealing with a huge component because it'll do difficult things for you, like talk to hardware and speak network protocols.
They don't work on a small level, which is what crap like .Net/SOAP/UDDI will be used for and promote.
Please. What self-respecting computer scientist can't see through media hype?
When you cut through the hype, what's left? It looks like bullshit to me. Exactly more of what we don't need. It's clearly my fault that it came out as a direct attack against object oriented programmer happy people.
Yeah I know I'm feeding the trolls. I just couldn't help myself, so this troll scores a "decent" 8/10 on my personal troll-o-meter.
I'm not sure if this is your sig or not, but attempting to shame someone (calling me computer illiterate) is much more trollish than me saying "The OOP is for shitidiots. Here's why."
Re:The following pdfs... (Score:1)
I was trying to think of a polite way to say this, but: you, sir, are a fucking idiot.
Well, if you use my special proprietary compression codec, which allows you get reach 100Mbps over common modem lines, then you could view the pdf on your computer without downloading it. No, really, you can, because of the speed. Because, you see, it's really fast.
Re:Upload them to Hotmail? (Score:1)
Upload them to Hotmail, so Microsoft's ownership of them becomes official?
No, no, no, upload them to Hotmail so Microsoft's copy enforcement scheme will prevent you from forwarding it to other people.
Re:The following pdfs... (Score:2)
It says you can download them, not view them.
Re:Why UDDI won't work (Score:2)
Ever hear of DNS? I'd consider it a central, easy, reliable and timely. Granted, DNS isn't perfect. But the point is that it can be done.
Because they can? It's not Java or CORBA. (Score:2)
I think ``using their preferred applications'' (from the front page) is a key phrase, that and ``cross platform programming features are addressed by adopting early versions of the proposed Simple Object Access ProtocoL (SOAP) messaging specifications'' (from the FAQ) heavily pushed by Microsoft. Microsoft would like you to prefer their applications over everyone else's, and in particular anything that's not Java/CORBA.
Let's see... ``The UDDI project is not being "run" by any one company. Nor is it a standards body or a new company. Rather, UDDI is currently being guided by a group of industry leaders'' - that sounds familiar. If the past is any guide, this will be Microsoft spearheading a hyper-SMB protocol and half-pretending that it's an open standard created by ``industry bodies.''
``The UDDI Business Registry is open to all businesses and industry bodies worldwide'' - forever? Or will, say, an MSN/Passport membership number eventually be necessary? First introduced to make things easier, of course...
The companies in their ``communities'' page have a few... issues. There are no links from this page to these members of the supposed community. VirtualWorkz don't appear on search engines. MetalSpectrum have an Ariba rep on their board. If AgentWareSystems are the correct ``agentware'' (I'm having trouble finding an agentware with a matching logo), they list IBM (also part of UDDI) as a partner. And so on. How you say, ``Astroturf Movement?''
``I know who that is... It's the wolf! It's the wolf!!'' -- Lambsie
Upload them to Hotmail? (Score:2)
Upload them to Hotmail, so Microsoft's ownership of them becomes official? Translate them to compressed PostScript and offend UDDI's sense of proprietaryness? Post ``improved'' copies that lead people to laugh at UDDI (even harder)? Upload over the top of them? This is an IIS 4 webserver; and if IBM were seriously involved, wouldn't it be WebSphere instead?
Re:firSSSt (Score:1)
Trust - A question (Score:1)
Re:Why UDDI may fail (Score:1)
If Saddam is willing to provide the United States with free baby food, why not take it?
Damn everything... (Score:3)
Who manages the site? Are they working on a 56k modem or something?
I'll be happy to offer advice on their bandwidth.
Re:UDDI is Nazi technology (Score:5)
While IBM sold machines to Germany that they used to perform the deportations, IBM had no idea about the Final Solution. Even the scholar who released the book about IBM and Germany acknowleged this (I read about it in Newsweek a couple of months ago).
IBM stopped dealing with Germany after the invasion of Poland. This was well before the U.S. entered the war, and before the SS even planned their elimination methods. The plan was drawn up by the #2 SS man in 1941 (I think 1941...), we just covered this in my Genocide course.
I don't know why the post was moderated up. The poster's UDDI "Nazi" connection is crap. "their missions were allied on the mighty Axis of powers" hahaha
Re:UDDI is Nazi technology (Score:2)
IBM collaborated with Nazi Germany. Ipso facto, UDDI is tainted by Nazi attrocities.
IBM is also a huge corporate advocate of slashdot's favorite operating system [ibm.com]. Does this make all Linux users Nazis as well?
Also, if you actually bothered to read the story [kuro5hin.org] that you linked to, you'd see that while IBM did sell Hollerith cards to Germany during The War, they were hardly Nazi sympathizers. The same technology can be used for good or evil. Dumbass.
ps. Yeah, I know, IHBT, IHL. Whoop.
Re:Hack Shoeboy (Score:1)
This scares me. Where's BlackParrot's troll following?
Damnit. Where's mine?
---
With UDDI's six month birtday (Score:2)
Re:Why UDDI won't work (Score:2)
no, it's not about b2b, and neither is it about web browsing and searching (ala google as the first poster stated).
put simply, UDDI is about applications finding other applications and services. something along the lines of:
i write a program that is a UDDI client and a SOAP client. my program accepts data from the user regarding travel arrangements. based on the input, i query a UDDI registry for services relating to travel. from the results of that query, my program can connect to the individual services (via SOAP) for price, availablity, etc. from there, the app can show the results to the user and allow them to select the most appropriate choice. then, the app could communicate that choice (via SOAP) to the web service and pay for the whole thing.
ok, my example is contrived and stupid, but it points out the really cool parts of SOAP and UDDI: all of the above can happen without ever writing code to a specific service. in fact, when new travel companies come on line, this program would automagically pick them up and use them in it's searches.
Re:With UDDI's six month birtday (Score:1)
The following pdfs... (Score:3)
The following PDFs are available for download only.
Download only? What else would I do with them?
Re:UDDI is Nazi technology [verging on off-topic.. (Score:2)
Do you think that all Germans for the rest of human history should be punished? That we should never deal with them?
How about America, which was the home of the evil IBM corporation?
Remembering is one thing, but there is only so far you can punish groups for things done by tangentially related people far in the past.
-Puk the Jew
Re:UDDI is Nazi technology (Score:1)
No, you missed the point. You need to contribute to the common misconception that IBM is a Nazi company out to get us all and should be avoided at all costs, because they'll bring things like Peace, Love and Linux to their customers.
I dunno. All I know is I can't wait for my 100GB IBM drive for $100. C'mon IBM don't keep me waiting...
The UDDI "community" (Score:1)
One question I have is: if the various products "protects from EMF", how can you take pictures of them using light? I haven't had such a good laugh in ages!
Re:UDDI is Nazi technology (Score:2)
Indeed -- in fact, IBMers were considered so important to the US war effort that the War Department had a separate hierarchy of ranks for servicemen who maintained and supported the IBM systems that drove artillery and other ballistic weapons. So, for example, a Private First Class who worked in this capacity would carry the official rank of PFCI (Private First Class, IBM), and his rank insignia were marked with an "I" to denote his special status.
USA Today ran a good column about Tom Watson Sr. [usatoday.com] and the way the whole IBM-backed-the-Holocaust group is misrepresenting him and his actions. The whole thing is a mess, and does a disservice to Watson and the other IBMers who did so much to help the Allies win WW2.
Uddi Uddi (Score:2)
"Green Pages" directory service (Score:1)
The proposed 'Green Pages' directory offers two main benefits:
Re:UDDI - this is why I am sceptical about it. (Score:1)
If there were a way for discovery agents to determine a supplier's credibility or reliability, they could make those tradeoff decisions. (For example, a ranking service could represent the following data: this vendor is not rated as 'extremely reliable,' but they're very new, well-financed, and already have accounts with other major players.) The more transparency a vendor allowed into their processes, the easier it would be to establish trust and get a good ranking.
We already have reputation management like credit ratings and eBay customer feedback, but we need something a lot better. I see this as a fundamental missing piece.
Re:Damn everything... (Score:1)
Plus every geek on the planet spends 3 hours a day there, minimum. There is something like a 32 page load minimum.
Re:Uh... (Score:2)
Read more at the website, www.uddi.org [uddi.org]
Re:UDDI will never work (Score:1)
try this again a cut and paste job.. "Plain and simple, Microsoft.NET is dead in the water. First of all, the distribution method is just plain awful. What were they thinking? No self-respecting user, be they "techno-savvy" or not, is going to take kindly to this. Secondly, the way they've handled the publicity over the past six months has been nothing short of shameful. These people make Yasser Arafat's spokesmen look like professionals. Finally, if they want this to take off, they have got to make information about it a bit more available to the general public. As it is, Microsoft.NET is a bit mystifying, and one gets the idea that they like it that way. "
Gee could you elaborate a little?
Jeremy
Re:UDDI is Nazi technology (Score:1)
So if I make a statement like:
White people work for UDDI.
The ancestors of these white people used to own and beat slaves.
Therefore UDDI is working to get people to reinstate slavery
Do I get modded up? Can I get modded up every time
hmmm (Score:1)
Since this site is clearly anti-MS the article will jusr cause a bunch of people to make posts and get VA more banner hits (money).
Re:What Is Wrong With UDDI Right Now (Score:1)
Well, at least the standardization part is addressed by the Semantic Web [w3.org] stuff, currently advocated by Tim Berners-Lee [w3.org], the "inventor" [w3.org] of the WWW and current Director [w3.org] of the W3C [w3.org]. An article [scientificamerican.com] was posted [slashdot.org] on Slashdot on April 11 about it that addresses this very issue. A Personal Web Page [umd.edu] at the University of Maryland [umd.edu] shows off some of the latest advances in this direction.
The Semantic Web is a vision: the idea of having data on the Web defined and linked in a way that it can be used by machines not just for display purposes, but for automation, integration and reuse of data across various applications. In order to make this vision a reality for the Web, supporting standards, technologies and policies must be designed to enable machines to make more sense of the Web, with the result of making the Web more useful for humans. Facilities and technologies to put machine-understandable data on the Web are rapidly becoming a high priority for many communities. For the Web to scale, programs must be able to share and process data even when these programs have been designed totally independently. The Web can reach its full potential only if it becomes a place where data can be shared and processed by automated tools as well as by people.This is from the Semantic Web Activity Statement [w3.org]. It seems to be a set of technologies aiming to address the service discovery problem more generally than UDDI.
Re:hmmm (Score:1)
Re:WTF?? (Score:2)
--
Re:The following pdfs... (Score:1)
UDDI doesn't address the hard part (Score:2)
How do I cross references the dozens of synonyms and antonyms for products and services...
That is d*mned hard. I don't see it being addressed in any of these papers. SOAP is an RPC standard of sorts, completely irrelevant to solving a global YP hierarchy.
Answer me this - Who decides who goes where ?
I think GOTO [goto.com] (disclaimer: I work for them) has some kind of answer - you pay GOTO to get placed - you place yourself wrong, the market punishes you with a cost for each un-converted referral. This is somewhat different to the YP hierarchy problem.
Winton
Re:WTF?? (Score:1)
I mean, I know it's already expecting too much of the avg /. reader to read the linked story (before posting), but I think the linked summary is reasonable...
Re:Let's hope UDDI catches on... (Score:1)
From what I can tell, UDDI is the latest in buzzword-compliant technology. Just like XML, its promoters overpromise its potential. I've been banging out code for 20 years now, and I think I can safely call UDDI (and XML f'r chrissakes) another overhyped silver bullet that will find a niche somewhere.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:WTF?? (Score:2)
For example: "UUDI". One question the average slashdotter might want to know up front is "WTF is UUDI?"
Please explain your acronym, "WTF?"
Bingo Foo
---
Why UDDI won't work (Score:4)
The idea that any kind of centralised service such as UDDI will ever manage to provide an easy, reliable and most importantly, a timely way of finding content online is pretty much preposterous to anyone who has ever used the net seriously. The net is just too anarchic and constantly changing for any such service to ever be reliable, and services like Yahoo have shown this, despite the millions of dollars of venture capital wasted.
Only search engines like Google have any hope of ever allowing people to discover information they need. The honeymoon days of web directories are over, and the technology has been shown to be the turkey it is. The net is a constantly changing place, and any static technology is doomed to failure.
Re:UDDI - this is why I am sceptical about it. (Score:1)
Re:UDDI - this is why I am sceptical about it. (Score:1)
UDDI - this is why I am sceptical about it. (Score:3)
Re:UDDI is Nazi technology (Score:1)
Re:WTF?? (Score:1)
Re:The following pdfs... (Score:1)
if you used IE you could read a pdf in the browser without necessarily downloading it
Thats one helluva impressive feature! Gosh, I wonder how they did it? I mean, how would the Acrobat plugin know what to actually display on the screen without downloading the file first? Also, is it faster than a normal download? Would be really cool if I could listen to mp3's without having to download 'em first, it takes so damn long on my 33.6 modem. Perhaps if I used IE I could do that.
OK OK .. I know what you meant, I'm just fooling around. It doesn't really make much sense the way you put it. The browser *has* to download the file. Anything else would be black magic.
Re:Wow! UDDI! It all comes down to OOP and it suck (Score:1)
If you operate on the principle that OOP sucks (ie, is for shitheads), then every structure built on top of it is also going to suck by definition, not including it's own inherent suck properties
Get a clue. "OOP" is merely a term describing a collective of design principles which include, mainly, modularity (encapsulation), inheritance and "generic programming". It is merely a small set of design principles which actually make sense, all of which (with the exception of polymorphism) were already in widespread use before the term "OOP" came into existence, and none were ever disputed as being good ideas until they fell under the umbrella term "OOP". An "OO language" is merely a language that provides some syntactic constructs for ideas such as encapsulation and inheritance, but this is merely as a convenience to programmers doing good design already (one of the best examples is the "gtk+" toolkit, object oriented, but implemented in C rather than C++, so it's packed with ugly, hacky typecast macros and a crude inheritance structure whereby a "derived" struct includes an instance of the "parent" struct as its first member. Urgh).
But at the same time, it could hurt if it's interfaces are poorly developed (see Win32 API for an example).
Get a clue. The Win32 API is not OO. The term "spaghetti" comes to mind.
Why do people with almost no knowledge about something insist on making the loudest noise about it? Seriously, I suggest you go learn more about what OOP really is before you go making a bigger fool of yourself. It seems to me all you've read is a few mainstream-media articles from the 80's which over-hyped "OOP" as some "revolutionary technology" that was going to change the world. Please. What self-respecting computer scientist can't see through media hype? You probably haven't noticed, but mainstream media overhypes EVERYTHING as a "revolutionary technology that is going to change the world". Thats how they sell their crap.
Yeah I know I'm feeding the trolls. I just couldn't help myself, so this troll scores a "decent" 8/10 on my personal troll-o-meter.
Heres what Jesus would do [OT] (Score:1)
Clearly, this must be WJWD: http://www.theonion.com/onion3417/abortion_clinic_ attack.html [theonion.com]
Now take your brainwashed twisted propaganda and FO, there's the door.
Re:Wow! UDDI! It all comes down to OOP and it suck (Score:1)
I'm not sure if this is your sig or not, but attempting to shame someone (calling me computer illiterate) is much more trollish than me saying "The OOP is for shitidiots. Here's why
It's not my sig, and I apologize for apparently incorrectly perceiving you to be technically illiterate, but you came across as sounding as such in your post. You sounded like one of those people who've overheard clued-up people complaining about some software/technology, and then they also want to sound clued up, so they try repeat to others what the clued-up person said. It was either that, or you did know what you were talking about, but were deliberately I see where you're coming from now.
You're right, if you cut through the hype, there isn't much left. I try not to waste my time reading / listening to hype. Good design is difficult and time-consuming, no matter what paradigm (or paradigms) you choose; a lot of people do seem to get swept up in some rabid zealous mindset, believing steadfastly in some catchy stupid "rule" such as "everything must be a class", as if abiding by a few one-liners is some sort of magic bullet to producing good system design. I guess that could be perceived as a problem with OOP, but it's more a problem of rabid followers. I like the principles that "OO" encompasses, and I like working in C++, but I'm well aware that there is no 'magic bullet' in design. I won't strictly use OOP for something if it doesn't need to be. I do get a bit annoyed when media articles say crap like "OOP will finally make the goal of reusable components attainable". Thats pure BS. I don't believe that OO has done very much at all to increase the amount of code reuse in the industry. A good reusable C++ class library is no better at being reusable than a good C function library. Some people just seem to want to make every single thing they see an ActiveX control.
Thanks for a decent reply. Most people would probably just have "gone on the defense" and attacked back (probably myself included). I'm humbled :)
I don't understand... (Score:1)
Re:WTF?? (Score:1)
Platy
Re:The following pdfs... (Score:1)
So be reminded - you are not allowd to do this with those pdfs..
Platy
way lame (Score:1)
from the PDF (Score:1)
another way to bloat up the web while not accepting that commerce on the web is not ever going to do what they (corp. america) would like it to. I long for the days when E-(insert annoying buzzword here) was a glimmer in satan's eye, and we all had crappy "homepages" that we managed to hide somewhere on the corp. website. At least then we didn't have to support this garbage and M$ didn't give a fuck about the web.
Re:UDDI is Nazi technology (Score:1)
moderators, fear the inevitable trout slapping
Re:UDDI is Nazi technology (Score:1)
Re:UDDI will never work (Score:1)
Are you saying I'm funny? What do you mean by that?
What Is Wrong With UDDI Right Now (Score:5)
As a developer working on a Web Services Development Platform [velocigen.com], it is very important to me that UDDI and the web services revolution succeed. I think they certainly have that capability; Web Services are here to stay, and UDDI will probably become pretty useful in a year or two. However, there is no doubt that there are significant problems with UDDI as it now stands. Here are a couple, and you can email me if you're interested in more.
1) No fact-checking mechanism:
As it now stands, any business can go to one of the main UDDI providers (Ariba, Microsoft, and IBM), and register their company. This company could be legitimate, could be pornographic, or could be entirely false and fraudulent. Moderation and arbitration is always a tricky subject, as demonstrated by the last couple hundred WIPO cases, and this case is no exception. If I register in IBM's UDDI directory as "Microsoft Corporation," who decides that I'm not actually Bill Gates? If I register a fraudulent service, charge for it, and then screw my customers, who is liable? With a rotating management (executives from each of the three administration companies take turns being in charge), how are UDDI placement rules defined and enforced?
At the last UDDI advisory board meeting, the proposed answer was "self-administration." The administrators believe that as UDDI grows in popularity, there will be service providers offering background checks and ratings, similar to the Gomez reviews for B-to-C providers. I can almost accept this explanation, but it is certainly not in place yet.
2) No standardization of entries:
At its heart, the point of UDDI is to find services. These standards-based services are supposed to be available for use and integration by consumers, businesses, etc. Not only are the service descriptions buried beneath several levels of marketing, company information, and other useless junk, but there is also currently no standardization of entries. The standards are there, the services are there, but they aren't being referenced correctly....and that defeats the purpose. At the lowest level (the green pages referenced in the article), each Web Service should have a service description file, written in WSDL (Web Services Description Language), that specifies available methods, inputs, and outputs. Currently, the lowest level is a hodgepodge of text, Word documents, phone numbers, and a very few WSDL files.
Even if the services were available, the UDDI administrators have not released their web-based search interface yet. Visit http://www-3.ibm.com/services/uddi/find.htm [ibm.com] to see an example....the "Find Services" button is unavailable, six months after UDDI's adoption.
We need some form of standardization, and it's not coming any time soon. At the UDDI advisory meeting, this question was pretty much blown off. There is nothing planned for the next two UDDI iterations that will fix this situation, and that means a couple of years at least. If the idea is to have our machines access and execute the services without user intervention, UDDI is a far cry from done.
----
As it stands now, UDDI is relatively unusable. I have high hopes for its future, but I think smaller directories and private service repositories will be quite a bit more useful until UDDI gets past its toddler stage. In-fighting between the administrator companies will probably delay this process, especially since UDDI won't cause money to flow directly back into their pockets any time soon.
Re:UDDI - this is why I am sceptical about it. (Score:1)
Human judgement is still involved here - all I'm suggesting the software will be able to do is provide trusted answers to factual questions. Note that none of the sample search criteria I mentioned is subjective. If we were automating human judgement the query would be "the best company for us".
Re:UDDI - this is why I am sceptical about it. (Score:2)
No one expects the first incarnation of UDDI to automate as complex a business transaction as switching 3 inch valve suppliers. The idea is to get everyone on the same platform so we can begin to automate what we can.
I believe the expected first version process is something like: A human queries UDDI for "companies that do X", finds a list of companies that do what they need, and then (returning to exist processes) individually researches each of them, contacts the one that look legit and has the best price, and strikes a deal.
Then hopefully soon people layer on some kind of trust mechanism and some better filtering capability and the query becomes "the cheapest company that does X and has been in business for Y years and offers so-and-so guarantee", cutting down the research part significantly.
And so on until twenty years from now all sorts of redidulous legal contract type stuff has been automated and the CEO just says "make it so".
Why UDDI may fail (Score:2)
Creating another so called standard seems to be something no one definitive company, nor collaboration of companies seems to be good at, at this is mainly a yellow pages type consortium. What will end up happening is something similar to WSDL, where it will be thought up, boasted about for a while then end up dying slowly.
You could take a good like at bluetooth for example where its sometimes touted as thee thing, yet after some minor time in the spotlight it seems bluetooth will rot in idealand. Wrong too many independent efforts overshadow the one good idea, often confusing the shit out of everyone. Whats that saying? "Too many hands in the pot spoil the stew" something like that. Maybe an RFC should be drafted for something like this, sure its not technology based as most RFC's, but a standard should be drafted, and a consortium created where it would be the one and only, not some new hyped-up-only-to-last-for-a-few-months acronym.
I beg to differ on this. Think about the entire scope of this for a quick second. Microsoft, Sun, etc., most are competitors, coming together for a cause, one which could affect the outcame of their sales, yet their just going to wholeheartedly make something for the interest of the customer? Especially when MS seems to take their business lightly via way of security and the way its implemented in their products.
I personally don't buy it, and see it as another buzzword counting the days till its dead.
so sue me [antioffline.com]
This is really a Dilbert joke, isn't it? (Score:1)
Re:The following pdfs... (Score:1)
I was trying to think of a polite way to say this, but: you, sir, are a fucking idiot.
Corporate policy (Score:2)
I mean, the point in all this SOAP/WSDL/UDDI is that every big company out there can rent instead of sell software. Think about it, put it along with the recent Microsoft policy and the search for a viable business model that can compete with Open Source, and look for the only thing that a hacker cannot break into (so to speak ;).
If every company starts to rent their web services think about Amazon being profitable at last in many ways, Yahoo starting to recover from this year's nightmare, and so on. Online venture business have something in which to bet again, with (yes, now there is or could be) an affordable way to make money from Internet. And think about all the major companies (Sun, Microsoft, HP, IBM, order them as you wish) joining the race, inventing new crazy ways of selling new unexpected services. And see also the other side. Watch pr0n sites climbing on the UDDI structure somehow, and spammers inventing ways to exploit this new virginal system. And chaos. Expect chaos at starters.
I don't expect UDDI will die soon. With all this effort behind it, it can only go ahead. Be serious, if you have a packet routing system invented in a military/university network turning around the world various times, hey, this also might work. How many standards have you heard of that in six months make everyone speak about it? They want this system. Knowing that, it's only a matter of time.
Why oh why... (Score:1)
Re:Some thoughts (Score:1)
"as any good Christian girl should be..."
Ah, but abortion doesn't affect good Christian girls, because good Christian girls don't have sex outside of wedlock.
"I'm a teen mother. "
Ouch! Looks like you just shot your "good Christian girl" title right in the foot!
"I should know what kind of pressures can be on someone to have an abortion."
Like the desire to get your "good Christian girl" title back?
"Just think of what my wonderful Christian father would think of me! What would Jesus think of me?"
Um... the same ol' Christian love that's supposed to be a constant? Unless, of course, they're more of the Inquisition-style "Christians"...
"Besides, what DO you think Jesus would do?"
My guess would be the usual forgiveness bit. Or the eternal damnation bit. All depends on what psalm you're reading from.
Re-Inventing the Wheel (Score:1)
Oh well
Re:Hack Shoeboy (Score:1)
Re:Why UDDI may fail (Score:1)
Consider a DNS registry. This isn't all that different. It is a considerably more complex, because it can describe a number of different services (see the notion of records in DNS though).
If you do make it a global registry, the concept of yellow/white pages makes sense: these are essentially just different queries against the database. You surely have used the White/Yellow Pages in your house?
As a developing standard, of course there is no RFC for this yet. It is still being hammered out - look at the specs!
Lastly, the argument regarding MS is somewhat empty... MS can't drive standards adoption on a B2B level - that's not their space. The only chance they have in driving these is by making them into community efforts. If MS is willing to spend money to do something good, why not take it???
As a side note, if you think this is a complex spec you should look at UDDI's superset: ebXML [ebxml.org]
Re:What Is Wrong With UDDI Right Now (Score:1)
The standards for naming are already there - you guys should be familiar with the UN/SPSC and like efforts. The problem is in trying to deal with the taxonomy data on a large level - it gets progressively harder the more data you have. And there are companies working on that problem!
On the whole I would agree - things are a bit immature for now, but as the big players try to get useful products out, the bugs will get ironed out.
This is after all why they are adopting UDDI over ebXML.
Let's hope UDDI catches on... (Score:2)
If UDDI catches on, adherence will become mandatory. If that isn't good news to the legions of the unemployed tech workers, I don't know what is. Imagine if every one of those mom-and-pop shops suddenly realizes that their biggest customer will walk away unless they adopt this UDDI/ebXML [ebxml.org] thing...
Anotherwords, you people should be reading up on this and gaining some expertise pronto. Help spread the word.