They are turning people away...
Monday, October 20, 2003
Conference sells out
When is the last time that you remember a software conference selling out?
They are turning people away...
They are turning people away...
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Where did "service fabric' come from?
I recently had someone tell me that when 'graham glass invented service fabric...blah, blah, blah...", to which I commented... you know, I don't know who invented the term 'service fabric', but Microsoft has been using it for a while now...
---- from DevX --- *a few years ago*
In the following paragraph from the same HailStorm announcement, Mark Lucovsky, HailStorm's primary architect of HailStorm, explains the architectural structure for developers:
We have a thing that we're calling the "service fabric," which is the glue that holds [HailStorm], that makes this system possible. It's a common infrastructure that we've built that all these services to run under. It's a common way to name the services. It's a common way to think about the services. It's a common set of interfaces that if you're writing a HailStorm service, that service must expose in order to have uniform query across all the different services, to have uniform data manipulation. So if I want to add a chunk of XML to a service, I don't have to learn a new way [to do it] for Calendar versus an Address Book. It's the same add method. The data might be different. The schema for that particular service might be different, but the programming model and the service fabric and the glue that holds it all together is uniform.
anyone? surely one of you dinosaurs will tell me that Iona invented it, or it was an MPI term or some shit like that...
:-)
---- from DevX --- *a few years ago*
In the following paragraph from the same HailStorm announcement, Mark Lucovsky, HailStorm's primary architect of HailStorm, explains the architectural structure for developers:
We have a thing that we're calling the "service fabric," which is the glue that holds [HailStorm], that makes this system possible. It's a common infrastructure that we've built that all these services to run under. It's a common way to name the services. It's a common way to think about the services. It's a common set of interfaces that if you're writing a HailStorm service, that service must expose in order to have uniform query across all the different services, to have uniform data manipulation. So if I want to add a chunk of XML to a service, I don't have to learn a new way [to do it] for Calendar versus an Address Book. It's the same add method. The data might be different. The schema for that particular service might be different, but the programming model and the service fabric and the glue that holds it all together is uniform.
anyone? surely one of you dinosaurs will tell me that Iona invented it, or it was an MPI term or some shit like that...
:-)
Top 10 Reasons Why the UBR Sucks...
I thought I'd do a top ten list on the UBR - but first, I am reaching out to you... send me your thoughts on why the UBR sucks (or doesn't)... jschneider @ momentumsoftware.com
10.
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
I'll publish the results in a couple of weeks.
10.
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
I'll publish the results in a couple of weeks.
Netscape 7.1 - So far, so good
About three years ago, I switched from Netscape to MS IE. I felt guilty when I did this. To rid my guilt, I have been downloading Netscape about every 6 months waiting for a version that 'works'. Well, I have to admit that Netscape 7.1 might just be the version I've been waiting for...
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp
Saturday, October 18, 2003
Services Oriented Enterprise
Sonic has dropped a reprint from "Enterprise Architect" at their site, titled "Services Oriented Enterprise".
Basically it says that the SOE is coming. More exciting, David Chappell got a nice picture of himself posing over a marketing piece showing JMS hooking up to parnters in a bus topology.
COMPLETELY UNRELATED.... here are some pictures of crashed buses:
ROTFL - jeff.
Basically it says that the SOE is coming. More exciting, David Chappell got a nice picture of himself posing over a marketing piece showing JMS hooking up to parnters in a bus topology.
COMPLETELY UNRELATED.... here are some pictures of crashed buses:
ROTFL - jeff.
Iona to release web services product on Monday
Although web services are still an emerging technology and part of a long-term investment program; Iona has stated that its new product "Artix" is part of a "get back to profitability" program:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5093213.html
If I remember the BCG product portfolio matrix correctly, the Cash Cow is supposed to sustain your profitability. The Rising Star is supposed to bring new profits...
This poses a common dilemma - what to do when your Cash Cow runs out of milk and your Rising Star is still in early adopter stage.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5093213.html
If I remember the BCG product portfolio matrix correctly, the Cash Cow is supposed to sustain your profitability. The Rising Star is supposed to bring new profits...
This poses a common dilemma - what to do when your Cash Cow runs out of milk and your Rising Star is still in early adopter stage.
Friday, October 17, 2003
Gartner has nice clipart
I just previewed the new Gartner presentation on, "The Business of Web Services: Models and Opportunities" by Whit Andrews.
Despite the amazing lack of substance, Whit managed to find some real nice clipart. However, I am now of the opinion that the clipart drove the message of his presentation. If you are looking for substance on web services, you will likely need to go somewhere else, however, if you are looking for clipart, Gartner is the place to be!
Keep up the fine work. :-)
Despite the amazing lack of substance, Whit managed to find some real nice clipart. However, I am now of the opinion that the clipart drove the message of his presentation. If you are looking for substance on web services, you will likely need to go somewhere else, however, if you are looking for clipart, Gartner is the place to be!
Keep up the fine work. :-)
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Monday, October 13, 2003
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Offshoring and Wiping Baby Boomers Bedridden Asses
I finally broke down and read the McKinsey report on offshoring. This is the report that everyone references when they don't know the facts about the effects of offshoring on the U.S. economy, the U.S. corporation or the U.S. citizen. Instead, people just say stuff like... "well, offshoring is natural. Didn't you read the McKinsey report? It actually benefits everyone!" Normally you need an MBA to make such an asinine statement. I can say, "Yes, I read the report"
Now, I'd like to hold a made-up, virtual conversation between Senator Adam Smith and myself:
Jeff responds, "Yes, I did read the McKinsey report. Well... as I'm sure you know, it isn't actually a "report" - it is a 'perspective' that was published preceding the release of any factual data. Senator, the thing that got me was that McKinsey decided to have a person from India write the report. Now, I'm sure that the author Vivek Agrawal didn't have any conflicts of interest - nor did McKinsey - even though their entire customer base is mostly globalized corporations that get short-term benefits from laying off American workers and replacing them with cheap offshore labor. But, I’m sure that when they put out their final report it will be under FULL DISCLOSURE.
The report was a good read. I really liked the part where they referred to laid off workers as being, "freed up to take other jobs" - holy shit, Senator - that Vivek really has a way with words!
Senator Smith comments back..."Come on Jeff. You're being critical. What Vivek was saying is that by reducing labor costs we are able to produce goods at a lower cost. This will have an immediate positive margin effect on the business owner and investor, allowing them to reinvest, which would lead to hiring new workers."
Jeff comments, "Come on Senator, new jobs? Doing what? These people can't fight the Asian pay scales. They're screwed. "
Senator Smith quips, "Now Jeff, they're not screwed. You saw the report. America is aging. The baby boomers will be retiring soon. This will deplete the workforce and create a new burden to take care of the elderly."
"So what you're saying is that for the sake of corporate profits, American lawmakers will tell well educated software professionals to move into health care? Sir, with all due respect, many of these guys have masters degrees in computer science, 10 years of experience and more importantly - THIS IS WHAT THEY LOVE DOING". You can't just tell them to start wiping baby boomers bed ridden asses as a new career, can you?"
Now Senator Smith is agitated. "You know I'm not recommending all software people start wiping asses for a living. I'm just saying that in order to remain competitive, we do.... well, what we have to. And you saw the McKinsey recommendation. They recommend that we offer a new insurance to those that groups most affected by offshoring. Thus, the employee will get 70% any difference in wage losses."
Jeff smiles. "Great, now I get to wipe asses and get sympathy insurance.... and I'm still not making as much as I used to. This makes me feel great!! But wait... if the employer gets stuck picking up the tab for ‘offshore insurance’ of 'freed-up workers' and the 'freed up' worker can't get a job then won't this lead to higher insurance premiums. And won't those premiums negate most of the benefits of going offshore in the first place?"
Senator - "Yes! Now you're getting it. The insurance package will have a payment system that penalizes corporations for laying off workers when the talent pool is high. Thus, if a corporation is only laying off people because they want cheap labor and there are lots of 'freed-up' American workers, then they should have to pay higher premiums."
"But Senator, when the economy is poor we usually see two things, 1. people getting laid off and 2. corporations trying to figure out how to make a margin. What you are telling me is that when corporations really need to squeeze out margins they won't be able to move work offshore because it will be cost prohibitive due to insurance premiums. That doesn't make sense.
On that note, why would I hire American workers at all - knowing that I'm going to get stuck paying for offshore insurance? So, let's say that I start a new company with some of that money I saved by laying off my American employees. Now, why would I hire Americans? Not only are they more expensive, but now they have a offshore tax that is associated with them."
Senator, "Well, Jeff... maybe you wouldn't. Maybe you'd just go offshore and take the higher margins the whole way. Then again, maybe you would hire locally because the job was better suited for proximity-based labor," commented the Senator.
Jeff sighs. "Gee Senator - I sure wish that I could believe the McKinsey report. I wish I could believe you. But for some reason, it just doesn't make sense. It is rare to find occasion where it is a true 'win-win' - I've found that usually one party wins, the other party wins, or it is a zero-sum-gain. I clearly see how the Indian government wins. I clearly see how the Indian corporation wins. I clearly see how the Indian employee wins. Conversely, I clearly see how the American employee (ass wiper) loses. What is less clear is the fate of the U.S. government and the U.S. corporation. I could see where the U.S. corporation could take short-term gains by 'freeing-up' labor. But 'freed-up labor' makes less money, has less purchasing power and ultimately buys less from those same corporations - which means that the U.S. government is collecting less sales and income tax. Senator, if I could make one suggestion?"
"Sure Jeff, what is it?", says the Senator.
"Senator, read the McKinsey report. I mean actually study it. Keep track of who wins and who loses (US government versus offshore government), (short term versus long term), (employee versus employer). My gut tells me that you're not going to like the outcome of your matrix. McKinsey has a great reputation - but I got a feeling that this one could end up being a real embarrassment for them. "
"Jeff, that sounds like solid advice. Can I get you another glass of wine... I think it's French!"
Now, I'd like to hold a made-up, virtual conversation between Senator Adam Smith and myself:
Jeff responds, "Yes, I did read the McKinsey report. Well... as I'm sure you know, it isn't actually a "report" - it is a 'perspective' that was published preceding the release of any factual data. Senator, the thing that got me was that McKinsey decided to have a person from India write the report. Now, I'm sure that the author Vivek Agrawal didn't have any conflicts of interest - nor did McKinsey - even though their entire customer base is mostly globalized corporations that get short-term benefits from laying off American workers and replacing them with cheap offshore labor. But, I’m sure that when they put out their final report it will be under FULL DISCLOSURE.
The report was a good read. I really liked the part where they referred to laid off workers as being, "freed up to take other jobs" - holy shit, Senator - that Vivek really has a way with words!
Senator Smith comments back..."Come on Jeff. You're being critical. What Vivek was saying is that by reducing labor costs we are able to produce goods at a lower cost. This will have an immediate positive margin effect on the business owner and investor, allowing them to reinvest, which would lead to hiring new workers."
Jeff comments, "Come on Senator, new jobs? Doing what? These people can't fight the Asian pay scales. They're screwed. "
Senator Smith quips, "Now Jeff, they're not screwed. You saw the report. America is aging. The baby boomers will be retiring soon. This will deplete the workforce and create a new burden to take care of the elderly."
"So what you're saying is that for the sake of corporate profits, American lawmakers will tell well educated software professionals to move into health care? Sir, with all due respect, many of these guys have masters degrees in computer science, 10 years of experience and more importantly - THIS IS WHAT THEY LOVE DOING". You can't just tell them to start wiping baby boomers bed ridden asses as a new career, can you?"
Now Senator Smith is agitated. "You know I'm not recommending all software people start wiping asses for a living. I'm just saying that in order to remain competitive, we do.... well, what we have to. And you saw the McKinsey recommendation. They recommend that we offer a new insurance to those that groups most affected by offshoring. Thus, the employee will get 70% any difference in wage losses."
Jeff smiles. "Great, now I get to wipe asses and get sympathy insurance.... and I'm still not making as much as I used to. This makes me feel great!! But wait... if the employer gets stuck picking up the tab for ‘offshore insurance’ of 'freed-up workers' and the 'freed up' worker can't get a job then won't this lead to higher insurance premiums. And won't those premiums negate most of the benefits of going offshore in the first place?"
Senator - "Yes! Now you're getting it. The insurance package will have a payment system that penalizes corporations for laying off workers when the talent pool is high. Thus, if a corporation is only laying off people because they want cheap labor and there are lots of 'freed-up' American workers, then they should have to pay higher premiums."
"But Senator, when the economy is poor we usually see two things, 1. people getting laid off and 2. corporations trying to figure out how to make a margin. What you are telling me is that when corporations really need to squeeze out margins they won't be able to move work offshore because it will be cost prohibitive due to insurance premiums. That doesn't make sense.
On that note, why would I hire American workers at all - knowing that I'm going to get stuck paying for offshore insurance? So, let's say that I start a new company with some of that money I saved by laying off my American employees. Now, why would I hire Americans? Not only are they more expensive, but now they have a offshore tax that is associated with them."
Senator, "Well, Jeff... maybe you wouldn't. Maybe you'd just go offshore and take the higher margins the whole way. Then again, maybe you would hire locally because the job was better suited for proximity-based labor," commented the Senator.
Jeff sighs. "Gee Senator - I sure wish that I could believe the McKinsey report. I wish I could believe you. But for some reason, it just doesn't make sense. It is rare to find occasion where it is a true 'win-win' - I've found that usually one party wins, the other party wins, or it is a zero-sum-gain. I clearly see how the Indian government wins. I clearly see how the Indian corporation wins. I clearly see how the Indian employee wins. Conversely, I clearly see how the American employee (ass wiper) loses. What is less clear is the fate of the U.S. government and the U.S. corporation. I could see where the U.S. corporation could take short-term gains by 'freeing-up' labor. But 'freed-up labor' makes less money, has less purchasing power and ultimately buys less from those same corporations - which means that the U.S. government is collecting less sales and income tax. Senator, if I could make one suggestion?"
"Sure Jeff, what is it?", says the Senator.
"Senator, read the McKinsey report. I mean actually study it. Keep track of who wins and who loses (US government versus offshore government), (short term versus long term), (employee versus employer). My gut tells me that you're not going to like the outcome of your matrix. McKinsey has a great reputation - but I got a feeling that this one could end up being a real embarrassment for them. "
"Jeff, that sounds like solid advice. Can I get you another glass of wine... I think it's French!"
Saturday, October 11, 2003
Microsoft just gets it...
Microsoft just plain gets it. They understand web services and they understand developer needs.
Take a look at this screen shot from the MS WSE documentation. One nice set of docs around all the WS-* specs. It is a thing of beauty...
Take a look at this screen shot from the MS WSE documentation. One nice set of docs around all the WS-* specs. It is a thing of beauty...
Friday, October 10, 2003
Public SOAP Router
I pistol-whipped one of my consultants into putting up a public SOAP router. It is the WSE 2.0 impl. If anyone wants to donate another impl, I'll gladly put that up as well.
For now, there is no dynamic routing algorithm.. just a static routing table. We are going to use 'to' fields in WS-Addressing as the final destination (for now).
We are also hoping to put up an unreliable-router soon (to test WS-ReliableMessaging, along with a static WSRM Policy Assertion).
This is super-duper beta kind of stuff. Send me an email if you are interested in testing out the public router: jschneider@momentumsoftware.com
We are building an HTML front-end so that you can add your own entries but this isn't out yet. Til then, you'll have to email us your endpoint information.
[[try to use 'pistol-whip' in a casual sentence when talking to friends - it will likely bring a smile to your face!]] LOL
For now, there is no dynamic routing algorithm.. just a static routing table. We are going to use 'to' fields in WS-Addressing as the final destination (for now).
We are also hoping to put up an unreliable-router soon (to test WS-ReliableMessaging, along with a static WSRM Policy Assertion).
This is super-duper beta kind of stuff. Send me an email if you are interested in testing out the public router: jschneider@momentumsoftware.com
We are building an HTML front-end so that you can add your own entries but this isn't out yet. Til then, you'll have to email us your endpoint information.
[[try to use 'pistol-whip' in a casual sentence when talking to friends - it will likely bring a smile to your face!]] LOL
Microsoft & Amazon link up via web services
By integrating Amazon Web Services, Amazon.com Research Services for Microsoft Office System will provide Microsoft Office System users with access to Amazon.com from within Microsoft productivity applications via the Research Task Pane. Users can access Amazon.com information and make purchases without launching a browser or leaving a document, email message, or presentation. For example, a customer reading a bibliography in a Word document could click on a book title and purchase it from within the Research Task Pane without leaving the Word document. Alternatively, a user will be able to add a footnote, bibliography entry and cover art for books without manually entering the information into a document.
See: http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?ArticleID=5611
See: http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?ArticleID=5611
Thursday, October 09, 2003
Logical Services
In web service composition (service piping, orchestration, etc.) you have the ability to make one service front-end multiple services. In BPEL, every orchestration is exposed as a web service despite the fact that it potentially encapsulates *many* web service calls.
I've blogged in the past about how the granularity of the service shouldn't matter. Granularity should be adjusted on the fly (when possible). I've blogged about *cheats* - that is, in-process calls that never actually used the network services (TCP & HTTP) - or even web service calls that were too lazy to use XML Schema - they realized that they were running in the same JVM or CLR and just used shared memory. These concepts are related to my vision of SODA (a concept popularized by Darryl Plummer at Gartner) or Service Oriented Development of Applications. The fact is that SODA doesn't work unless you cheat. You must have both static and dynamic optimizations of service-to-service calls.
When you do this you begin to realize that the piece of code that you called your 'service' was aggregated with another piece of code also called a 'service'. After a while, you realize that all of your services were really just logical things that could have their boundaries redrawn.
Web services are logical - hell, software is logical. The interfaces, the boundaries, the messages between them - all logical. Thus, the ability to recombine them in new ways is not only possible and practical, but perhaps inevitable. Future SODA tools will have the ability to *compile* multiple services together into single service.
Now, what does *compile* mean? Hmm... interesting question. Well, it could mean actually compiling. Or it could mean orchestrating. Or perhaps, just redelivering the service to a runtime container that knew how to *cheat*. Any way you look at it, the art of SODA will be about the ability to combine services in a variety ways. It should protect the black-boxed nature of the service while still giving the developer all of the functionality and performance of a compiled application.
SODA is the evolution of programming; when should an object be a component? When should a component be a service? If you answered these questions based on interface granularity then you don't understand SODA.
I've blogged in the past about how the granularity of the service shouldn't matter. Granularity should be adjusted on the fly (when possible). I've blogged about *cheats* - that is, in-process calls that never actually used the network services (TCP & HTTP) - or even web service calls that were too lazy to use XML Schema - they realized that they were running in the same JVM or CLR and just used shared memory. These concepts are related to my vision of SODA (a concept popularized by Darryl Plummer at Gartner) or Service Oriented Development of Applications. The fact is that SODA doesn't work unless you cheat. You must have both static and dynamic optimizations of service-to-service calls.
When you do this you begin to realize that the piece of code that you called your 'service' was aggregated with another piece of code also called a 'service'. After a while, you realize that all of your services were really just logical things that could have their boundaries redrawn.
Web services are logical - hell, software is logical. The interfaces, the boundaries, the messages between them - all logical. Thus, the ability to recombine them in new ways is not only possible and practical, but perhaps inevitable. Future SODA tools will have the ability to *compile* multiple services together into single service.
Now, what does *compile* mean? Hmm... interesting question. Well, it could mean actually compiling. Or it could mean orchestrating. Or perhaps, just redelivering the service to a runtime container that knew how to *cheat*. Any way you look at it, the art of SODA will be about the ability to combine services in a variety ways. It should protect the black-boxed nature of the service while still giving the developer all of the functionality and performance of a compiled application.
SODA is the evolution of programming; when should an object be a component? When should a component be a service? If you answered these questions based on interface granularity then you don't understand SODA.
Stencil Group Changes Mission: Conspiracy Theorists
Ok. Just kidding of course. The Stencil Group does great work - however, I really, really don't understand the conspiracy piece that Bill Robins wrote about at news.com.
Why would IBM and MS share the stage to promote web services? The answer is simple. They need to create a compelling reason for their customers to buy the next generation of software suites. The major advancement in the suites is web services - and yes again, interoperability is required. IBM and MS must do more sessions with top people demonstrating this in order for them to convince the customer base of the primary value proposition.
One more time...
A compelling reason to buy.
Microsoft makes decisions based on making money... selling products... providing value; it is real simple.
Why would IBM and MS share the stage to promote web services? The answer is simple. They need to create a compelling reason for their customers to buy the next generation of software suites. The major advancement in the suites is web services - and yes again, interoperability is required. IBM and MS must do more sessions with top people demonstrating this in order for them to convince the customer base of the primary value proposition.
One more time...
A compelling reason to buy.
Microsoft makes decisions based on making money... selling products... providing value; it is real simple.
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
Becky Dias at MS is blogging
I just found the blog for Becky Dias, the WSE product manager at Microsoft.
Check out: http://blogs.gotdotnet.com/rdias/
Check out: http://blogs.gotdotnet.com/rdias/
Monday, October 06, 2003
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Cape Clear has a nice WSDL editor...
So I needed to hack up a quick wsdl - so I sucked down the free one from Cape Clear.
It rocks. However, I didn't fully understand this:
It rocks. However, I didn't fully understand this:
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Web Services Enterprise Edition
What is the standard .wsdl for a workflow engine to expose its state?
What is the standard .wsdl to expose a message queue? What about a pub/sub topic?
What is the standard .wsdl to expose LDAP?
What is the standard .wsdl to expose POP? SMTP? FTP?
You know, it's great to have one-off wsdl's over at xMethods. But at some point we are going to have to pull together a 'library' (or profile) of wsdl's to expose the technology architecture. The library should be consistent in style. After we finish it we should throw it away - because it will be wrong. Then we should start over.
What is the standard .wsdl to expose a message queue? What about a pub/sub topic?
What is the standard .wsdl to expose LDAP?
What is the standard .wsdl to expose POP? SMTP? FTP?
You know, it's great to have one-off wsdl's over at xMethods. But at some point we are going to have to pull together a 'library' (or profile) of wsdl's to expose the technology architecture. The library should be consistent in style. After we finish it we should throw it away - because it will be wrong. Then we should start over.
The end of BPM-1, the beginning of BPM-2
I dropped a few comments on BPM-2 at 'Loosely Coupled'. I'll try to elaborate on this article in the coming days.
Also, I seem to be losing the battle to change the name of an ESB to something that makes sense. So, if you can't beat'em join'em. Message oriented services with durable load tempering devices is a solid concept. It's still a stupid name - but I'll get over it.
Also, I seem to be losing the battle to change the name of an ESB to something that makes sense. So, if you can't beat'em join'em. Message oriented services with durable load tempering devices is a solid concept. It's still a stupid name - but I'll get over it.
Saturday, September 27, 2003
7 Things Great Software Architects Have
1. Friends that are also great architects
2. Loyal associates that are great designers and programmers that will work with them no matter what the project is
3. Extensive experience on at least 3 platforms (mainframe, J2EE, .net, CORBA, TOGAF, etc.)
4. A bookshelf that is about to topple over and a mechanism for demoting bad books
5. 3 or more candidate architectures or software architecture documents (SAD's) on your hard drive
6. Your personal ontology of non-functional requirements
7. 'Success Patterns' - things you know which have worked on previous engagements
2. Loyal associates that are great designers and programmers that will work with them no matter what the project is
3. Extensive experience on at least 3 platforms (mainframe, J2EE, .net, CORBA, TOGAF, etc.)
4. A bookshelf that is about to topple over and a mechanism for demoting bad books
5. 3 or more candidate architectures or software architecture documents (SAD's) on your hard drive
6. Your personal ontology of non-functional requirements
7. 'Success Patterns' - things you know which have worked on previous engagements
Thursday, September 25, 2003
Lou Dobbs - Exporting America
WOW - I just watched Lou Dobbs. He is running a special series called, "Exporting America". He is spot lighting the overwhelming move of American jobs to low wage countries like India and China. Lou is one of only a small handful of people that have had the balls to stand up and fight for the American I.T. worker and the current unfair trade policies that exist.
Tonight, he had Adam Smith, congressman from Washington on the show. Adam has initiated a study with the GAO to look into the effect of the multi-national corporations decision to fire American workers and hire cheap offshore labor.
What was extremely disturbing was that Adam Smith seemed to already have his mind made up. He commented that he didn't have any issues with the H1B program, and thought that there *might* be some issues with the L1B program. Adam Smith are you nuts? The American I.T. worker has taken it up the ass.
Last week my company had some job openings and I did the interviewing. I had three candidates in a row all come in who were on an L1B program, hadn't had a job in months, continued to stay in America and were commenting that they would work for "whatever I wanted to pay". I asked them who sponsored their visa and they all told me names of different Indian based 'body shops'. Naturally, I asked if the shops that brought them in employed them. They then explained to me that the Indian shop provided them a plane ticket. In exchange for the ticket, the individual would have to pay the sponsor 20% of all of their wages while in the U.S. It was the individuals responsibility to go and get a 'real employer'. In essence, they were indentured servants to the company that bought their ticket. Adam Smith this is reality. Don't believe me? Get an employers account on Monster.com, do a search for "Java" - you pick the city, call the first ten results and ask the individuals their situation. I dare you.
Here is the contact page for Adam Smith:
http://www.house.gov/adamsmith/contact/contact.html#
Take the time and fill out the form. Please.
Tonight, he had Adam Smith, congressman from Washington on the show. Adam has initiated a study with the GAO to look into the effect of the multi-national corporations decision to fire American workers and hire cheap offshore labor.
What was extremely disturbing was that Adam Smith seemed to already have his mind made up. He commented that he didn't have any issues with the H1B program, and thought that there *might* be some issues with the L1B program. Adam Smith are you nuts? The American I.T. worker has taken it up the ass.
Last week my company had some job openings and I did the interviewing. I had three candidates in a row all come in who were on an L1B program, hadn't had a job in months, continued to stay in America and were commenting that they would work for "whatever I wanted to pay". I asked them who sponsored their visa and they all told me names of different Indian based 'body shops'. Naturally, I asked if the shops that brought them in employed them. They then explained to me that the Indian shop provided them a plane ticket. In exchange for the ticket, the individual would have to pay the sponsor 20% of all of their wages while in the U.S. It was the individuals responsibility to go and get a 'real employer'. In essence, they were indentured servants to the company that bought their ticket. Adam Smith this is reality. Don't believe me? Get an employers account on Monster.com, do a search for "Java" - you pick the city, call the first ten results and ask the individuals their situation. I dare you.
Here is the contact page for Adam Smith:
http://www.house.gov/adamsmith/contact/contact.html#
Take the time and fill out the form. Please.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
The 2-pin theory.
Sean McGrath wrote a thought provoking piece.
I caught myself responding on one of the news groups & thought I'd share...
===================================
Wow - nice piece from Sean. Thought provoking.
Is the *magic* of the interface related to the *2-pin* theory (i.e., do(x)) or it related to advancements in protocol negotiation? Does USB work better because of the number of pins or because of the structured negotiation between participating components? What about BlueTooth?
WS-* is moving into a world where dynamic protocol negotiation for non-functional requirements will be able to happen on the fly.
An example of two web services talking to each other (think consumer:producer) :
Service 1: Can you do encrypted?
Service 2: Yes, I do TripleDES, Do you?
Service 1: Yes, let's do it!
Service 1: Do you do Reliable Messaging?
Service 2: No, not for this operation.
Service 1: Can you treat this operatin as part of a transaction?
Service 2: No, I can't, but I do have a compensating mechanism, see URI:xxx.wsdl
Service 1. Great, I'm going to use it.
Now, an interesting question is how did databases servers get away with a small number of interfaces / operations? The answer is that they created languages which could be shipped across a wire to perform more complex functionality. Thus, the database has the notion of the do(x) - or if you'd like, you could say that it had:
do(DDL)
do(ANSI SQL 92)
do(stored procedure), etc.
Back to the conversation:
Service 1: Now, it is time for us to do some real work, I need some data, do you support XQuery 2.0?
Service 2: Of course! Send your query on over!
Service 1: Ok, here it is: (query blah, blah, blah)
Service 2: Great! Here is your result (some data, ....)
Now, of course, you wouldn't want the conversation to be anywhere near this verbose... but you get the idea. Simplicity in interface doesn't just happen by creating a magic "do(x)" - you have to actually have some meat behind the operation. Web service protocol designers are attacking both of these fronts (NFR protocol negotiation and ubiquitous, shippable languages like XQuery).
IMHO, looking for simplified interfaces is good - just be careful not to throw away your meta-data just to make a clean WSDL.
Jeff
I caught myself responding on one of the news groups & thought I'd share...
===================================
Wow - nice piece from Sean. Thought provoking.
Is the *magic* of the interface related to the *2-pin* theory (i.e., do(x)) or it related to advancements in protocol negotiation? Does USB work better because of the number of pins or because of the structured negotiation between participating components? What about BlueTooth?
WS-* is moving into a world where dynamic protocol negotiation for non-functional requirements will be able to happen on the fly.
An example of two web services talking to each other (think consumer:producer) :
Service 1: Can you do encrypted?
Service 2: Yes, I do TripleDES, Do you?
Service 1: Yes, let's do it!
Service 1: Do you do Reliable Messaging?
Service 2: No, not for this operation.
Service 1: Can you treat this operatin as part of a transaction?
Service 2: No, I can't, but I do have a compensating mechanism, see URI:xxx.wsdl
Service 1. Great, I'm going to use it.
Now, an interesting question is how did databases servers get away with a small number of interfaces / operations? The answer is that they created languages which could be shipped across a wire to perform more complex functionality. Thus, the database has the notion of the do(x) - or if you'd like, you could say that it had:
do(DDL)
do(ANSI SQL 92)
do(stored procedure), etc.
Back to the conversation:
Service 1: Now, it is time for us to do some real work, I need some data, do you support XQuery 2.0?
Service 2: Of course! Send your query on over!
Service 1: Ok, here it is: (query blah, blah, blah)
Service 2: Great! Here is your result (some data, ....)
Now, of course, you wouldn't want the conversation to be anywhere near this verbose... but you get the idea. Simplicity in interface doesn't just happen by creating a magic "do(x)" - you have to actually have some meat behind the operation. Web service protocol designers are attacking both of these fronts (NFR protocol negotiation and ubiquitous, shippable languages like XQuery).
IMHO, looking for simplified interfaces is good - just be careful not to throw away your meta-data just to make a clean WSDL.
Jeff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
