-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
A Look at Google's Open Source Protocol Buffer
,----[ Quote ]
| Google's documentation on Protocol Buffers noted that the new format has
| numerous advantages over XML. Among the advantages cited by Google is the
| fact that Protocol Buffers could be 3 to 10 times smaller and 20 to 100 times
| faster than XML for serializing structured data.
`----
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3758506/A+Look+at+Googles+Open+Source+Protocol+Buffer.htm
Now, SOA governance goes open source
,----[ Quote ]
| This is significant, because it represents the beginning of the next wave of
| open-source SOA tools and platforms, joining application servers, Enterprise
| Service Buses (ESBs) and development toolsets.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=1145
Related:
More obvious misgivings about Microsoft and SOA
,----[ Quote ]
| My take is that inside of Microsoft its aggressor A-types are all about
| dissing SOA and promoting .NET ad nauseam. At the same time the Microserfs
| and developers must understand the inevitability of SOA for at last a portion
| of the most advanced and innovative enterprises’ and service providers’
| architectures.
|
| And so, as the world turns toward SOA, Microsoft will fight quietly inside of
| itself about what it really is as a company — a partner to its customers, or
| a parasite on the hide of productivity.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2538
Microsoft: My way or the highway with SOA?
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft isn’t changing its tune with SOA, the authors say, noting
| that “Microsoft again appears to be crafting its own rules and vision. The
| company has so far declined to participate in certain key emerging industry
| standards relevant to SOA. It has a different perspective on what SOA is and
| a different approach for crystallizing its vision.“
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=931
Microsoft absent from open standards movement around SOA
,----[ Quote ]
| Now, a new series of SOA standards is headed to OASIS, ones that could
| create a whole market segment around SOA common programmatic principles,
| but Microsoft is nowhere in sight. The absence of Microsoft from the
| Service Component Architecture (SCA), and its sibling Service Data
| Objects (SDO), definitions process can mean one thing: Microsoft will
| pursue its proprietary approach of baking pseudo-SOA into its
| operating system stack as long as it can.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2483
Halloween Memo I Confirmed and Microsoft's History on Standards
,----[ Quote ]
| By the way, if you are by any chance trying to figure out Microsoft's policy
| toward standards, particularly in the context of ODF-EOXML, that same
| Microsoft page is revelatory, Microsoft's answer to what the memo meant when
| it said that Microsoft could extend standard protocols so as to deny
| Linux "entry into the market":
|
| Q: The first document talked about extending standard protocols as a way
| to "deny OSS projects entry into the market." What does this mean?
|
| A: To better serve customers, Microsoft needs to innovate above standard
| protocols. By innovating above the base protocol, we are able to deliver
| advanced functionality to users. An example of this is adding
| transactional support for DTC over HTTP. This would be a value-add and
| would in no way break the standard or undermine the concept of standards,
| of which Microsoft is a significant supporter. Yet it would allow us to
| solve a class of problems in value chain integration for our Web-based
| customers that are not solved by any public standard today. Microsoft
| recognizes that customers are not served by implementations that are
| different without adding value; we therefore support standards as the
| foundation on which further innovation can be based.
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070127202224445
Microsoft needs REST
,----[ Quote ]
| Yaron Goland defended his Microsoft colleague, Dare Objasanjo, as a poor
| sitting duck. He justifies the decision to scrap APP as tactical and not
| strategic. He states: “We considered this option but the changes needed to
| make APP work for our scenarios were so fundamental that it wasn’t clear if
| the resulting protocol would still be APP… I also have to admit that I was
| deathly afraid of the political implications of Microsoft messing around with
| APP.” According to Goland, “we couldn’t figure out how to use APP without
| putting an unacceptable implementation and performance burden on both our
| customers and ourselves.”
|
| The implications for this APP vs. Web3S debate can potentially be enormous.
| Just as we are on the brink of creating simple architectures that are
| interoperable using simple standards, the industry risks splitting into
| separate, incompatible camps again. It is probably no coincidence that we
| have Microsoft on one side and Google, IBM and Sun on the other. This will be
| a fundamental problem for enterprise customers if Microsoft extends this
| strategy into any REST architectures that it introduces into the enterprise.
| Any enterprise systems that expose their data using APP, which is likely in
| the near future, will be incompatible with any Microsoft system that expose
| their data with Web3S.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Newton/?p=14
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkh6+QIACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6foQCfcduw0Wrrm/NnBJyHNGdeujiB
09QAn2NEYfxaJD61BB6wGKis7UqKUpLR
=RGHO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
