Re: Do consumers even want web services? - Page 11


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 279

Thread: Re: Do consumers even want web services?

  1. #151
    Carl Rapson Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?

    You could just as easily ask, what is it about web services that gets
    Michael D. Kersey so riled up? If he doesn't like them, he doesn't have to
    use them. Why is he so insistent that we all recognize the limitations of
    web services, but he won't recognize the benefits?

    Carl Rapson

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3c9714f0.4067292@news.devx.com...
    > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 01:15:04 -0800, "Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Good thing you're a simple fool.

    >
    > Anyone who gets this irate must have a hidden agenda. It doesn't make
    > sense to simply call someone else a fool, let alone a simple fool, as
    > a line of counter-argument. I can just picture you, sitting there,
    > thumping the table, spittle forming, as you conjure up another rude
    > put-down. What is it about web services that does this to a person? In
    > fact, I'm still waiting for anyone in the .Net camp to explain, with
    > examples, typical web services and how we will benefit from them
    > compared with the status quo. But, hey, come on, come clean! You know
    > explaining them is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling, don't
    > you?
    >
    > MM




  2. #152
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3c9714f0.4067292@news.devx.com...
    > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 01:15:04 -0800, "Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Good thing you're a simple fool.

    >
    > Anyone who gets this irate must have a hidden agenda. It doesn't make
    > sense to simply call someone else a fool, let alone a simple fool, as
    > a line of counter-argument. I can just picture you, sitting there,
    > thumping the table, spittle forming, as you conjure up another rude
    > put-down. What is it about web services that does this to a person? In
    > fact, I'm still waiting for anyone in the .Net camp to explain, with
    > examples, typical web services and how we will benefit from them
    > compared with the status quo. But, hey, come on, come clean! You know
    > explaining them is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling, don't
    > you?
    >
    > MM


    I'm not Irate Mike. I just have a command of invective. I can assure you,
    I don't thump tables and rarely does spittle form.

    The simple fact is that if you or a select few others want to sit around
    making up fictions about programming, programming languages, platforms or
    technologies...if you're just here for your political agenda and do nothing
    to push the .NET discussion forward for some warped political agenda you
    have against Microsoft, then I'm going to sit here and make fun of you.
    And, if your tone is condescending, I'll match that tone in pitch, just to
    make certain no one misses the point.

    --
    -Robert

    Have a cow, man:
    http://www.riddleme.com/html/cow.html



  3. #153
    Ed Courtenay Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?


    "Michael D. Kersey" <mdkersey@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
    news:3C978702.E33C8890@hal-pc.org...
    >
    > Even in using Web Services you still must (or should)
    > > sit down with their people, thrash
    > > out a format that we're both happy with

    > because the terminology and meaning of terms must be agreed upon
    > beforehand. For example,
    > - one corporation's (or one division's) definition of "business name"
    > may differ from another's;
    > - the use of NULL values, empty strings, or special values is critical,
    > - the contents of a database field may be time-dependent (i.e., what it
    > contains may vary depending on what state that field is in).
    > If you don't investigate these questions, then you'll be surprised when
    > your Web Services either fails or worse, silently accepts invalid data.


    Sounds to me like you need to read up on WSDL.

    >
    > > Yes, I know it could have been implemented differently, but it made

    sense in
    > > this scenario. If the serial number lookup functions were available

    locally
    > > to the web server, would we have used a web service to do this? Of

    course
    > > not. But in the environments it was designed for, SOAP/WSDL/Web Services

    are
    > > a compelling technology that serves a very useful business need.

    >
    > In this case Web Services
    > - provided a new starting point for both parties that allowed them to
    > come to agreement,


    Precisely - that's the entire point

    > - gave each IT group a chance to play with something new (.NET, Axis) to
    > add to their resume,


    No, I don't have time to muck about. I will use a tool because it's right
    for the job. And here's a hint. It's right for this particular job.

    > As you state yourself, you could have done the same with a CGI script
    > outputting tab-delimited data. In either case you must communicate the
    > details of your requirements to them and they should have provided their
    > data dictionary.


    Why would I want to write my own custom parser for the tab-delimited data,
    when the WSDL introspection tools give me fully qualified classes and data
    structures that I can deal with without having to muck about with data
    files?

    >
    > IOW in this case Web Services acted as a social facilitator at most.


    Nope, it worked as integration facilitator, validation mechanism and a truly
    rapid development mechanism for cross-platform communications.




  4. #154
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?

    "Michael D. Kersey" <mdkersey@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
    news:3C9782DF.9E7341E2@hal-pc.org...
    > Notes inline...
    > Robert Lantry wrote:
    > > And they scale just fine.

    >
    > Can you support this claim by either fact or deduction? Perhaps you can
    > show us benchmarks as proof? Perhaps you're extrapolating your "Hello
    > World" Web Services experience to the real world?


    Yes, it's called clusetering technology. Look into it. Any platform.
    Knock yourself out.

    >
    > > > > ....it's interoperability that counts...
    > > > That's what M$ wants everyone to think.
    > > > In fact
    > > > 1. currently most systems make remote calls infrequently (as compared

    to
    > > > internal system calls to local data, APIs, database, etc.),

    > > Apples and Ostriches.

    >
    > No. With little exception, what can be done with a remote call can be
    > done locally. If you have the required information, *anything* can be
    > done locally: remote calls become unnecessary.


    Listen, do you understand that the data or process you want doesn't reside
    locally? Because it's not your business? For example, credit card
    transactions? Purchase information? Web-services provide data that reside
    outside the realm of you, your company or your application. Maybe you're a
    travel agency. You need to book flights on 12 different airlines...book
    car-rentals on 16 different car-rental companies...book hotel rooms on 1200
    different hotels. But none of that resides "local" to you - nor could it!

    >
    > The wrong solution to the web is Microsoft's decentralized "Web

    <SNIP>... Web Services
    > > > are the "tail wagging the dog." and there's simply little or no need

    for
    > > > their use.

    > >
    > > That you can understand...which is almost forgivable, except that you're

    a
    > > wilful incompetent who hasn't actually written anything that uses a

    remote
    > > procedure call on a foreign system.

    >
    > Your resort to ad hominem attack is unjustified. In fact I may have
    > first worked on such systems before you were born.


    It's possible...if you were doing RPC in the 1950s.

    >
    > > I mean you seriously just don't get it.

    <SNIP>
    > There have *always* been published "interfaces so that anyone foreign to
    > you can use them". Unfortunately the second part of your sentence:
    > > without them having to invest in your technology

    > is mo more true for Web Services than for any other remote procedure
    > technology. Why do you go on about this?


    Becaues I've done about a half-dozen document solutions for the PUC of
    california, The Health-Care industry, Banking and a few manufacturing
    industries (a steel company) - and every time the choke was the moving of
    data between various vendors, supliers or participants that utilized
    completely incompatible data formats over incompatbile pipes. Not to
    mention the work that had to be done with wireless handheld devices.

    In every instance there was no turn-key solution. MQ had to be used in many
    instances. Had web-services been available for any one of those projects we
    would have had much less plumbing to write, would have had scaleable
    solutions and less brittle architectures.


    <snip>
    > IOW no corporation has ever
    > successfully implemented BizTalk by themselves. BizTalk is "Big Talk",
    > indeed.


    http://www.biztalk.com


    <SNIP>
    > Just as applications *appear* easy to build in VB, Web Services *appear*
    > easy to build in .NET. But the secret to a good VB app is in the details
    > that can't be set up in the first 15 minutes. The same holds for Web
    > Services. There are many thing that must be done prior to coding:
    > - standardizing terminology,
    > - agreeing on syntax and semantics of XML terms,
    > - providing UDDI,
    > - providing failover servers (in case a server goes down),
    > - automating accounting and payment for usage,
    > - handling of calls across vendors (current vendor implementations of
    > SOAP are not compatible),
    > - provision for security,
    > - error handling,
    > All must be done prior to the 15-minute session where you crank out your
    > "Hello World" web service in .NET.
    > Many of the above items don't have a standard yet. None of them is
    > particularly easy, especially the first two which, both in and between
    > corporations, usually proceed at a glacial pace, if at all.


    And gosh, you don't have to do any of these steps with a non-Web-Services
    solution, right? You have an even more magical black box that just provides
    error-handling, security, discovery, terminology, et. al.?


    >
    > > And what is your point? We got that they're slower. No one's denied

    that.
    > > But what exactly is your beef?

    >
    > My point is that Web Services as implemented by Microsoft
    > - will be very slow,
    > - will be unreliable,
    > - will radically increase CPU, memory and bandwidth requirements on
    > clients, servers, and networks,
    > - will dramatically increase latency on clients, server and networks,
    > - will lower availability,
    > - are not yet standardized either by standards bodies or *de
    > facto*(e.g., UDDI, security, etc.),
    > - at best implement only a small portion of what is necessary to build
    > applications on the Internet (or any network for that matter),
    > - are designed to maintain the *status quo*: decentralized "islands of
    > information", when centralization of data is the real solution,
    > - at day's end will leave us no better off than we were before we
    > started.


    I tell you what, these are your assertions, which I do not agree with. The
    burden of proof is on you that they're slower, unreliable and the host of
    other sins you attribute to them. So, you go out and do a case study and
    then get back the the metrics so we can see your results and argue directly
    to them. Or, if IBM has a cite or Sun or ANYONE has corroborating cites to
    these assertions, then just point us at them so we can quantify these into a
    coherent argument. If you want to argue that they're "self-evident" (for
    example, I'm willing to accept that hashing XML and HTTP requests are
    slower) then simply provide a cite where it's germaine to the discussion.
    Hashing XML/HTTP may indeed be slower, but the real time is eaten by my
    process, regardless of the transport mechanism I use and the XML/HTTP hash
    is a constant, so tell me how that impacts my application. What is "too
    slow" or what is "unacceptable reliability".

    The data has to be placed into some sort of consumable format for my
    application. There has to be some sort of pipe to transmit the data. Tell
    me what your superior solution is...


    >
    > IBM has a better solution: the internet as a utility, in the sense that
    > your electrical power company is a utility. Processing should be
    > centralized and integrated. That is a valid view: that approach will
    > predominate and succeed. See
    > http://www-1.ibm.com/services/ondemand/index_flat.html for details. IBM
    > of course provides for "Web Services" in a fashion similar to Microsoft,
    > but in IBM's vision, they are properly only a minor part of the
    > solution.


    Well, there we have it. Use IBM's product instead of Microsoft's. Now that
    I understand where you're coming from, the fog has lifted. WebSphere...the
    irony.

    > > Oop...the servers up! It works! Oop...the servers down! It doesn't
    > > ork! -- Same equation on either side of the fence. Go ahead and stack

    a
    > > DCOM solution up against a web-service for reliability...I betcha the

    same
    > > failure points exist for either of them.

    >
    > No, you're missing the point. My point is that the proper approach is to
    > use multiple platforms as little as possible. Centralization and
    > integration of data and processing power is a superior solution. It's
    > economically more viable, performs better and provides increased
    > availability.


    So, I just tell my trading partners, move all your data to my facility? I
    tell Visa, I need all your credit data here, next to my data to improve
    availability? I tell my suppliers to move everything into my realm of
    influence and I'll handle all the details because it performs better? I
    tell all the doctors in my case study to move all patient data to my big old
    Oracle database because it's economically viable for me?

    I mean, honestly, is that your solution?!

    >
    > ===== Twenty-first-century taxes: ======================
    > lottery - tax for sleeping in math class
    > XML - tax for sleeping in compiler class
    > Web Services - tax for sleeping in data structures class
    > ========================================================
    > That which is excellent is new forever.



    --

    -Robert

    Have a cow, man:
    http://www.riddleme.com/html/cow.html



  5. #155
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?

    "Michael D. Kersey" <mdkersey@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
    news:3C978702.E33C8890@hal-pc.org...
    <SNIP>

    >
    > Even in using Web Services you still must (or should)
    > > sit down with their people, thrash
    > > out a format that we're both happy with

    > because the terminology and meaning of terms must be agreed upon
    > beforehand. For example,
    > - one corporation's (or one division's) definition of "business name"
    > may differ from another's;
    > - the use of NULL values, empty strings, or special values is critical,
    > - the contents of a database field may be time-dependent (i.e., what it
    > contains may vary depending on what state that field is in).
    > If you don't investigate these questions, then you'll be surprised when
    > your Web Services either fails or worse, silently accepts invalid data.


    You have to do all of these on any solution.


    >
    > > Yes, I know it could have been implemented differently, but it made

    sense in
    > > this scenario. If the serial number lookup functions were available

    locally
    > > to the web server, would we have used a web service to do this? Of

    course
    > > not. But in the environments it was designed for, SOAP/WSDL/Web Services

    are
    > > a compelling technology that serves a very useful business need.

    >
    > In this case Web Services
    > - provided a new starting point for both parties that allowed them to
    > come to agreement,
    > - gave each IT group a chance to play with something new (.NET, Axis) to
    > add to their resume,
    > As you state yourself, you could have done the same with a CGI script
    > outputting tab-delimited data. In either case you must communicate the
    > details of your requirements to them and they should have provided their
    > data dictionary.
    >
    > IOW in this case Web Services acted as a social facilitator at most.


    Of course, the fact that internally you could use the same function call as
    a non-web service, but still export it to the outside world as a web-service
    seems to have escaped your attention, which is surprising, since you like
    the concept of "Centralization" so much.

    You could have an entire business library internally that never uses a
    Web-Service because it's unecessary on this side of the firewall. But that
    exact same library can be used outside the firewall without any
    modifciation. What's wrong with that? If you already built these business
    components, why on earth would you want to re-implement them in another
    language in a differernt format?!

    --

    -Robert

    Have a cow, man:
    http://www.riddleme.com/html/cow.html





  6. #156
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?


    "Michael D. Kersey" <mdkersey@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
    news:3C9782DF.9E7341E2@hal-pc.org...

    > No. With little exception, what can be done with a remote call can be
    > done locally. If you have the required information, *anything* can be
    > done locally: remote calls become unnecessary.


    Still a moron I see.

    > The wrong solution to the web is Microsoft's decentralized "Web
    > Services" solution. The proper solution to the web is IBM's "services"
    > solution: centralization of processing and integration of solutions.
    > Why?


    Perhaps because IBM manufactures great big expensive mainframes?

    Kunle




  7. #157
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?


    "Michael D. Kersey" <mdkersey@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
    news:3C96DC74.5F757967@hal-pc.org...

    > "abosolutely"?
    > They may be fine running with you as sole user on your own PC in your
    > own office, but what about a real system with 1000's of customers!-))


    MS's .NET Services works fine as does Dave Winer's stuff....

    Kunle



  8. #158
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?

    Y'know what? Now that I see you live in Houston (or, at least part of their
    user group), I realize how heavily "influenced" by IBM you are. And you're
    a prolog programmer.

    Why on earth are you in the VB.NET discussion group? Apparently just to
    bash competing technology.

    --

    -Robert

    Have a cow, man:
    http://www.riddleme.com/html/cow.html


    "Michael D. Kersey" <mdkersey@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
    news:3C9789E2.8C222DCC@hal-pc.org...
    > Notes inline...
    > Ian R wrote:
    > > One could argue the same over a system based around a dialup or roving
    > > wireless connection. Heck even a cross process call is slower than one

    in
    > > the same process. If near local speed is critical to your app then the
    > > design needs to be done carefully. DCOM, CORBA SOAP or otherwise won't

    help
    > > you out there.

    >
    > Yes, which is why you should avoid all of them.
    >
    > > Considering most apps run locally I would expect that to be so. The

    point ?
    >
    > Centralize and integrate.
    >
    > > > predominate, then Web Services will definitely fail because they are
    > > > ...
    > > > d) reduce availability.

    > >
    > > This doesn't make sense. How ?

    >
    > Because they rely on
    > - multiple hardware platforms,
    > - other network paths,
    > - increase the loads of all systems involved: clients, servers, and
    > networks.
    > The mathematics of reliability and availability dictate that
    > availability declines as the number of elements involved increases. See
    > my earlier post on these same newsgroup about this.
    >
    > > > Anything done with Web Services can be done faster and with less
    > > > overhead by eliminating Web Services.

    > >
    > > Not cost effectively it can't. By the time you finish writing your code

    to
    > > handle different platforms, different data formats, data deliverability

    ....
    > > you end up with .. let's see.. web services ?

    >
    > This is why centralization is the true solution. Web Services is a hack
    > to maintain the status quo of "islands of information". Unfortunately
    > even if all these islands were connected with Web Services they would be
    > no faster, no more reliable and no more secure. IOW Web Services and
    > .NET are little more than a white-collar jobs program for right-mouse
    > clickers.
    >
    > > I don't think anyone stated that they would be fast. Easier and more
    > > productive are a couple of key points.

    >
    > This talk of increased productivity will come to a halt when the groups
    > involved actually meet to come to terms on data definitions. Generating
    > the code is only a small part of communicating information.
    > >
    > > > Web Services proponents are also ignoring the mathematics of

    reliability
    > > > and availability which state that, in performing any task, the more
    > > > components (hardware or software) you need to do the task, the less
    > > > reliably can that task be accomplished. In particular, in the case of
    > > > Web Services, availability drops off as the number of servers

    (separate
    > > > hardware platforms) involved in completing a task (composed of a

    number
    > > > of Web Services) increases. I did the math in an earlier post on this
    > > > same newsgroup. This isn't opinion, it's simple math: ignoring it is
    > > > simple foolishness.
    > > >

    > >
    > > Considering that web services run on top of existing systems that

    arguement
    > > can be thrown out.

    >
    > By eliminating Web Services and centralizing processing, the number of
    > components can be reduced. Consequently
    > - reliability and availability,
    > - security,
    > - productivity (due to common API),
    > can increase. At the same time costs would dramatically decrease (no
    > need for armies of hundreds of right-mouse clickers).
    >
    > ===== Twenty-first-century taxes: ======================
    > lottery - tax for sleeping in math class
    > XML - tax for sleeping in compiler class
    > Web Services - tax for sleeping in data structures class
    > ========================================================
    > That which is excellent is new forever.




  9. #159
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?


    >
    >No, you're missing the point. My point is that the proper approach is to
    >use multiple platforms as little as possible. Centralization and
    >integration of data and processing power is a superior solution. It's
    >economically more viable, performs better and provides increased
    >availability.


    No, you've missed the point. Unfortunately some of us don't live in the utopia
    that you speak of. Some of us have ot deal with otrher companies and even
    other division of the same company where standards are different. This is
    where Web Services can help. May not be a perfect solution, but it is a step
    in the right direction. When the whole world runs out of 1 data center, then
    your (and IBMs)ideas will work great.

  10. #160
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?

    On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:34:59 -0000, "Ed Courtenay"
    <replace-this-with-my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk> wrote:

    >Yes, I know it could have been implemented differently, but it made sense in
    >this scenario. If the serial number lookup functions were available locally
    >to the web server, would we have used a web service to do this? Of course
    >not. But in the environments it was designed for, SOAP/WSDL/Web Services are
    >a compelling technology that serves a very useful business need.


    I agree. This sounds like a good use of a web service because you
    didn't really have any other way of doing it. You chose the right tool
    for the job.

    Any other web service suggestions, folks?

    MM

  11. #161
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?

    On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:49:51 -0600, "Carl Rapson" <rapson3@cox.net>
    wrote:

    >You could just as easily ask, what is it about web services that gets
    >Michael D. Kersey so riled up? If he doesn't like them, he doesn't have to
    >use them. Why is he so insistent that we all recognize the limitations of
    >web services, but he won't recognize the benefits?


    I can't answer for Michael D. Kersey, but the problem I have with the
    web services hype is that the entire raison d'Ítre for .Net is to
    implement XML web services, since that is where Microsoft sees its
    future meal tickets, directly or indirectly. The .Net designers knew
    that only developers developers developers would be key to promoting
    it, and the most programmers they wanted to bring over were VB
    programmers. Hence the total rewrite of Visual Basic into VB.Net, the
    Soviet-style obsolescence of classic VB, and the gung-ho, all singing,
    all dancing Pleasantville conversion of desktop computing to
    (inter).Net-based computing. And all because they couldn't get their
    own way by embracing and extending Java.

    MM

  12. #162
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3c979c4e.2692879@news.devx.com...
    > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:34:59 -0000, "Ed Courtenay"
    > <replace-this-with-my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    > >Yes, I know it could have been implemented differently, but it made sense

    in
    > >this scenario. If the serial number lookup functions were available

    locally
    > >to the web server, would we have used a web service to do this? Of course
    > >not. But in the environments it was designed for, SOAP/WSDL/Web Services

    are
    > >a compelling technology that serves a very useful business need.

    >
    > I agree. This sounds like a good use of a web service because you
    > didn't really have any other way of doing it. You chose the right tool
    > for the job.
    >
    > Any other web service suggestions, folks?
    >
    > MM



    How about charging a credit card through a third-party service provider?

    How about ordering supplies from a third-party vendor?

    How about wrapping several external services up into one service that you
    provide (i.e., the travel agent who books flights, car-rentals and hotel
    rooms)?

    How about a warehousing application that automatically re-orders part number
    345 from vendor 123 when the supply hits a specific number without any user
    intervention at all?

    How about a refrigerator that restocks itself?

    How about a cell-phone that orders movie tickets?

    How about a doctor's office that can schedule a CAT scan at the university?

    How about scheduling, running and receiving results of tests at the particle
    accelerator at Stanford?

    How about requesting documents in xyz format from 123 company in abc format?

    How about a game that automatically requests updates?

    How about software that self-heals and auto-updates? (there's a good example
    of this over at gotdotnet.com)

    How about distributed processing applications?

    I run the risk of sounding like I have "shiny hammer" syndrome, but frankly,
    if the shoe fits in a particular scenario, then it fits. Your mileage may
    vary.

    --

    -Robert

    Have a cow, man:
    http://www.riddleme.com/html/cow.html




  13. #163
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?

    On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:22:06 -0800, "Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com>
    wrote:

    >And, if your tone is condescending, I'll match that tone in pitch, just to
    >make certain no one misses the point.


    By all means match my tone in pitch, and volume, too. But I think
    you're going to have to look long and hard in this ng to find any
    trace of personal invective from yours truly. Because it just comes
    across as stamping one's foot or slamming a door. And my agenda? It is
    that I believe Microsoft is bad for consumers, and if enough people
    start to at least think about it, they will likely come to the same
    conclusions once they look beyond the here and now. It's like we in
    the UK had the Tory (conservative) government for eighteen long years,
    and there are *still* people who would vote for them today. But by
    dint of argument and also because of Tory sleaze, lack of direction,
    and John Major, the Tories eventually lost.

    Argument never hurts anyone as long as the truth is told.
    Unfortunately, the zealotry in this ng, almost all of it emanating
    from the pro-.Net camp, tends to want to suppress the truth and
    varnish the hype because its proponents see that shouting down one's
    opponents has often worked in the past, therefore it has every chance
    of working again.

    MM

  14. #164
    Dave Keighan Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?

    Hi Mike
    [...]
    > Argument never hurts anyone as long as the truth is told.

    At this level, some people could give a fiddlers for this specific type of
    truth - what MS (or any other conglomerate) do in the closet. They're
    probably here to learn about .Net because they use VB, need to feed their
    kids or just have an inquiring mind. They're all suing each other for
    whatever reasons that can be dreamed up this week - here's a conspiracy
    theory for you; the entire industry is owned by the Mafia and the court
    cases are just another money laundering scheme

    Who's truth?

    --
    Dave Keighan

  15. #165
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Do consumers even want web services?

    On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:32:04 -0800, "Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com>
    wrote:

    >How about charging a credit card through a third-party service provider?


    We can already do this without web services.

    >How about ordering supplies from a third-party vendor?


    We can already do this without web services.

    >How about wrapping several external services up into one service that you
    >provide (i.e., the travel agent who books flights, car-rentals and hotel
    >rooms)?


    We can already do this without web services.

    >How about a warehousing application that automatically re-orders part number
    >345 from vendor 123 when the supply hits a specific number without any user
    >intervention at all?


    WCADTWWS.

    >How about a refrigerator that restocks itself?


    A gizmo, a gimmick, not applicable to most consumers, who prefer real
    shopping and *choosing* anyway. You think I wanna come home and find a
    horse's head in the SMEG? Especially when I ordered pig's face?

    >How about a cell-phone that orders movie tickets?


    If the cell-phone has a browser, we would apply the technology we have
    already - it's called "the internet", i.e. WCADTWWS.

    >How about a doctor's office that can schedule a CAT scan at the university?


    WCADTWWS.

    >How about scheduling, running and receiving results of tests at the particle
    >accelerator at Stanford?


    WCADTWWS.

    >How about requesting documents in xyz format from 123 company in abc format?


    How about just receiving the document in abc format, then converting
    it? We can already do this.

    >How about a game that automatically requests updates?


    Like Norton/Symamtec's LiveUpdate, you mean? WCADTWWS.

    >How about software that self-heals and auto-updates? (there's a good example
    >of this over at gotdotnet.com)


    Like Norton/Symamtec's LiveUpdate, you mean? WCADTWWS.

    >How about distributed processing applications?


    Give me an example of what you're thinking about and I'll get back to
    you on this.

    >I run the risk of sounding like I have "shiny hammer" syndrome, but frankly,
    >if the shoe fits in a particular scenario, then it fits. Your mileage may
    >vary.


    No, I respect your enthusiasm. It's just that I think you've been
    seduced by all the hype.

    MM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center