Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
The Internet

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why UDDI Will Work

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    to you.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I am still looking for a hot, young geek to have raunchy butt sex with. I would prefer to meet in a public bathroom somewhere.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Oh, come on! E2 is nothing more than an excuse for a circle-jerk. The day I read anything on that site for learning purposes will be shortly after insanity sets in.

    It could also be argued that /. persistently linking to E2 is an abuse of their geek monopoly position. After all, how many readers will use Brittanica or Encarta for information when a link to E2 is provided? Leveraging their monopoly in this way is an abuse of customer trust and is anti-competitive.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Cut/paste the contents of a link from the blurb and get +1 informative? Welcome to slashdot.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Plain and simple, UDDI 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, UDDI is a bit mystifying, and one gets the idea that they like it that way.

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I'll be happy to offer advice on their bandwidth.

    Here's my advice:

    Get more.

  • by pb ( 1020 )
    Exactly. That's almost as worthless as the original description, and definitely worse than writing a coherent story submission.

    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].
  • by pb ( 1020 )
    Unfortunately, that doesn't give me much more information. It did load eventually, though.

    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].
  • 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).

  • 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."

  • 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.

  • What else would I do with them?

    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.

  • Or at all for that matter.

    It says you can download them, not view them.
  • 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.


    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.
  • Why oh why is something being pushed by M$ on a .org?

    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

  • What else would I do with them?

    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?
  • by PD ( 9577 )
    Sorry, I never had one of those before.
  • Are the distributed trust metrics of Advogato and sourceforge the type of thing that might provide a solution to the first problem?
  • If MS is willing to spend money to do something good, why not take it???

    If Saddam is willing to provide the United States with free baby food, why not take it?

    ;^)

  • by GC ( 19160 ) <giles@coochey.net> on Monday April 16, 2001 @02:11PM (#287680)
    I do wish that Everything [everything2.com] would just get a bit faster....

    Who manages the site? Are they working on a 56k modem or something?

    I'll be happy to offer advice on their bandwidth.
  • by Tiro ( 19535 ) on Monday April 16, 2001 @02:21PM (#287681) Journal
    The post is a troll.

    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
  • UDDI's single biggest proponent is IBM. This is incontrovertible.

    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.
  • Wow, Shoeboy has a troll following.

    This scares me. Where's BlackParrot's troll following?
    Damnit. Where's mine?

    ---
  • - isn't it all about business-to-business?

    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.
  • glad it's not just me.
  • by ShavenGoat ( 63696 ) on Monday April 16, 2001 @01:57PM (#287687) Homepage
    When you first visit the site, they have a download section to the right. It states:

    The following PDFs are available for download only.

    Download only? What else would I do with them?
  • Godwin's Law [astrian.net] notwithstanding, that's just silly. I fully believe in the "never forget" aspect of remembering the Holocoust and fighting to avoid another one, but holding a corporation responsible for things done by the management of that corporation in a particular country, 50 years ago by not dealing with them in any way now is ridiculous.

    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

  • 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 companies in their ``communities'' page have a few... issues. There are no links from this page to these members of the supposed community.
    I picked a company at random - Clarus [clarus.com] - and went to their web site. First, their UDDI blurb says
    "As a leader in providing open and interoperable B2B solutions, Clarus embraces UDDI as a standard that validates our business model," reports Steve Hornyak, Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer of Clarus Corp. "We look forward to continued participation in this initiative to ensure that business-to-business integration and commerce on the Internet becomes even more seamless."
    You'd think they were some sort of network infrastructure company or something, right? Wrong! They sell a pendant called the "Q-Link" that "protects from Electromagnetic Field (EMF) radiation", "enhances mental clarity" and increases energy and vitality". Because it has a "life-enhancing resonating cell", you see. All this for a mere $300! They also sell special "ClearWave" digital alarm clocks which incorporate "Sympathetic Resonance Technology (SRT)". SRT, of course, is what protects you from that nasty EMF.

    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!

  • 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.

  • While you're at it, check out the excellent Uddi Uddi font foundry. It's at http://uddiuddi.com/.
  • The proposed 'Green Pages' directory offers two main benefits:

    1. as described in the Stencil Group paper, this will provide a standard way to dig up technical information about services (business rules, service descriptions, invocation details, and data binding);
    2. by collecting green pages, we can return to Myst and free Dad from the D'ni link book.
  • 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.

  • The trouble is the constant uploads and updates to the site make page viewing slow because large parts of the database get frequently locked for commission.

    Plus every geek on the planet spends 3 hours a day there, minimum. There is something like a 32 page load minimum.
  • UDDI stands for Universal Description, Discovery and Integration. Basically it's a super-duper yellow pages for business services that is heavily XML (and HTTP?) based.

    Read more at the website, www.uddi.org [uddi.org]
  • You are so full of BS.

    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

  • A blatant troll gets modded to 3???

    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 /. has a new article because I'm sure I can think of another stupid correalation like this.

  • Judging from the wording at everything2.com "world domination" its something that MS is working on.

    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).

  • 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.

  • WTF! How did "Total World Domination" become something the M$ is working on? I thought that was Linus' battle cry...
  • Well, they did include an Everything2 link [everything2.com]. Which seems to be slashdotted. As always for E2. :P

    --

  • if you used IE you could read a pdf in the browser without necessarily downloading it.
  • The hard part is constructing a distributed ontology (i.e. not just the initial YP hierarchy itself), but the placement of businesses within them, and maintain it consistently and correctly. Who's gonna police me putting my company under every single category (I mean I want my name to come up under every danged service so I get eyeballs, the same as most of todays search engine hacks).

    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

  • I think thats was why they put the little ? link to everything2.

    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...

  • If you have done anything with e-commerce tools today you should know what a bloody mess it the whole area is. No one can afford to deal with partners electronically, because it takes so much IT effort to get them up and running.
    This is because the majority of e-commerce tools are inflexible and designed to the lowest-common-denominator. My company (a comparison shopping site [pricegrabber.com]) brings up new retailers in about 15 minutes, excluding legal overhead. It just doesn't have to be so.

    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.

  • I disagree!

    What we are doing now, with this fancy world-wide-web, this is all just fancy terminal bullshit! Sure, we have this nice enough markup language, but its all still basic client-server! Telnet into port 80 sometime on a webserver - its still just basic client server. Same with FTP, and SMTP, and POP, and IMAP and all the rest of your favorite protocols. They are all just client/sever apps with fancy gui's. (and sometimes not)

    I think .NET is the exact opposite of this model we have now - I think it shifts into a more multi-tiered role for "web-services". I think the idea of web-services could go either way - good for everyone or bad. Its all in the implementation.

    I personally like the thought of being able to access the exact same applications on my Palm, my Debian box, my FreeBSD box, and my Windows laptop. I think that would be great. If UDDI gets me a step closer, which it may or may not, then that'd be great. IF not, well oh well, just longer to wait.
  • Dear pb,

    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

    ---

  • by Trevor Goodchild ( 187368 ) on Monday April 16, 2001 @02:02PM (#287709)

    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.

  • ebay customer feedback and credit ratings is not how businesses transact, my friend...you are talking about a direct to consumer type model (ok, i will say it: b2c)... Companies today can use D&B reports, credit ratings from reputed third party sources etc...how will UDDI replace the existing system or make it better???? How does one test a supplier's reliability online? And if I use a supplier to buy, let's say, copper, why would I want to publicly rate him (and thus expose a low-cost supplier to my competition????) Remember, b2b is TOTALLY different from the consumer world. B2B is really a zero-sum game. If I award a million dollar contract to a supplier, it means every other supplier lost the million bucks. UDDI forgets this basic business fact.
  • 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.
    This function is typically performed by vendor management/supplier management/QC/Purchasing departments in companies. Aren't we being a bit hasty in assuming that all of this, and human judgement, will be replaced by, gulp, software and a better search engine?
  • by nooekanami ( 192720 ) on Monday April 16, 2001 @02:29PM (#287712)
    Discovering a business partner is only a miniscule part of the b2b equation - think of the "business partner discovery" phase as reading about a person on a personals site. Merely reading about it doesn't constitute a successful "transaction". Similarly, just because GE or GM can locate my products on the web doesnt mean they can transact with me. The ability to transact depends on my e-biz infrastructure and my back office ERP system. Just type the words "laptop + 550MHZ" in Google. It will throw up hundreds of results. Does this constitute enough information for one to buy a laptop from these vendors or resellers? Also, what are the odds of industrial procurement managers typing in the words "concentrated sulfuric acid" or "3 inch valve" in Google? These companies have existing relationship with suppliers. It is the supplier who has to reach out to more customers, not the other way around. For a supplier to transact with a large corporation, it has to be of a certain size/credibility/revenue et al. No amount of web-based description/discovery will ever replace this. UDDI is old hat, being rehashed by a group of companies that are desparately trying to keep stock market's interest alive in the B2B sector. I have no doubts - b2b is here to stay and it will become a viable channel for companies to participate in. UDDI represents a really, small step in that direction.
  • Obviously this is a troll, but I can't help asking, "What about IBM's 'Peace, Love, and Linux' campaign?"
  • I agree with you, the headline sucked. But: note the link to UDDI.org [uddi.org]. At least there was something of substance that wasn't /.ed.
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 :)

  • What's wrong with http://dmoz.org/Business/ ? Isn't it exactly the same thing?
  • [ ] You noticed the little question mark beside UUDI
    Platy
  • eat em, hit em, offend em, rape em, or, worst of all, kill em.
    So be reminded - you are not allowd to do this with those pdfs.. :)
    Platy
  • I would like to take the person who decided to use the web as a service (application, whatever buzzword they would like to apply) out behind the barn and beat them, in my opinion this is all just bad rehash of the terminal based computing of the past, done up with preety colors and lag ass speed
  • The Universal Description, Discovery and Integration (UDDI) specifications define a way to publish and discover information about Web services. The term "Web service" describes specific business functionality exposed by a company, usually through an Internet connection, for the purpose of providing a way for another company or software program to use the service. Web services are becoming the programmatic backbone for electronic commerce. For example, one company calls another's service to send a purchase order directly via an Internet connection. Another example is a service that calculates the cost of shipping a package of a certain size or weight, so many miles via a specific carrier. At first glance, it would seem simple to manage the process of Web service discovery. After all, if a known business partner has a known electronic commerce gateway, what's left to discover? The tacit assumption, however, is that all of the information is already known. When you want to find out which business partners have which services, the ability to discover the answers can quickly become difficult. One option is to call each partner on the phone, and then try to find the right person to talk with. For a business that is exposing Web services, having to staff enough highly technical people to satisfy random discovery demand is difficult to justify. Another way to solve this problem is through an approach that uses a Web services description file on each company's Web site. After all, Web crawlers work by accessing a registered URL and are able to discover and index text found on nests of Web pages. The "robots.txt" approach, however, is dependent on the ability for a crawler to locate each Web site and the location of the service description file on that Web site. This distributed approach is potentially scalable but lacks a mechanism to insure consistency in service description formats and for the easy tracking of changes as they occur. UDDI takes an approach that relies upon a distributed registry of businesses and their service descriptions implemented in a common XML format.

    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.
  • Nice fucking troll...^5
    moderators, fear the inevitable trout slapping
  • this was better moderated as +3 Troll it is not interesting or a +2 don't fuck up a good thing morons
  • Not only that but as several other /.ers have noted -- WTF is UDDI?? -- It seems that the average sloppy joe doesn't know what it is. Nice publicity.

    Are you saying I'm funny? What do you mean by that?

  • by ABIGGUY ( 237764 ) on Monday April 16, 2001 @02:59PM (#287727)

    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.

  • This function is typically performed by vendor management/supplier management/QC/Purchasing departments in companies. Aren't we being a bit hasty in assuming that all of this, and human judgement, will be replaced by, gulp, software and a better search engine?

    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".

  • I don't think anyone denies that UDDI is a small step (though the UDDI folks probably dont' favor 'miniscule'). Rather than claiming to be a total solution, the UDDI executive whitepaper [uddi.org] says "UDDI is a building block to enable businesses to quickly, easily and dynamically find and transact with one another". (Somehow that got turned into "UDDI is the building block" on the front page of uddi.org - I'm assuming by an over zealous marketing person. What can you build with one block?)

    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".


  • 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.
    These independent efforts to develop web-based services come at just the right time, when defensive business managers are seeking to find ways to preserve their bottom lines, while simultaneously staying astride their customers' and partners' rapidly growing expectations for service quality and technical flexibility in their trading relationships.
    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.

    Bottom line, UDDI will succeed because its technical underpinnings work for the geeks, and the geeks will use SOAP, UDDI, and other layers of the emerging web services stack to bridge a wide range of heterogeneous collaboration, supply chain, and EAI solutions. These bridges will make good on B2B e-commerce's promise to help companies trade and make products more efficiently than ever before.
    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]

  • After reading through http://www.uddi.org/about.html, which is filled with recursive definitions and buzzwords (use of the word "synergy" should be made a violation of international law), I have come to the conclusion that Scott Adams is behind this. His next book: "Welcome to UDDIville".

  • if you used IE you could read a pdf in the browser without necessarily downloading it.

    I was trying to think of a polite way to say this, but: you, sir, are a fucking idiot.

  • In the last twenty years of disputes and war all against all, this is the first time that everybody agree in a standard and embrace it, looking for compatibility.

    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.

  • is something being pushed by M$ on a .org??
  • Yes, I know this is off-topic. I've got the karma, and I think this will be worth it. :)

    "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.

  • A quick glance, and it looks like they are duplicating something that businesses have used for years. http://www.thomasregister.com

    Oh well :)
  • His password is "three-billy-goatse.cx-gruff"
  • I don't think you've read their info quite right.

    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]

  • I think what you will see is an emergence of semi-private registries that will check their constituents (industry-specific, country-specific, etc.) The other option is to follow the DNS growth pattern, ie. here come the lawsuits.

    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.

  • If you have done anything with e-commerce tools today you should know what a bloody mess it the whole area is. No one can afford to deal with partners electronically, because it takes so much IT effort to get them up and running.

    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.

"Ada is PL/I trying to be Smalltalk. -- Codoso diBlini

Working...