Sunday, April 18, 2004

More on UDDI


I just read your blog entry on this, and it's totally in harmony with my own thoughts on the matter. Until a few weeks ago I was in charge of directing the UDDI pilot->implementation programme for [a major investment bank], and we've pulled the plug on it because the whole t-Model thing is just far too complicated to be used in any meaningful way by the constituency that needs it.

We're now planning on building a service registry around an XML metadata store, and will probably go for an XQuery interface as the primary service discovery mechanism. We may keep what I've been terming a 'naive UDDI'
interface for compatibility with existing tools etc., but the long term hope is that we can throw this back over the wall to then vendors (and standards bodies) as something will need to replace UDDI in the web services unholy trinity

Chris Swan

Now Stefan states, "I have since come to the conclusion that all this taxonomy and categorization stuff is actually pretty ingenious." Stefan, I agree in a computer science kind-of-way it is ingenious. However, most people just want to quickly store, index or retrieve "Service Oriented Metadata". People don't like taxonomies or t-models.

UDDI was largely designed for external use (the UBR); the use cases that is supports are so far beyond the use cases that are required for intra-company needs that is quickly becomes too complicated.

I'd love to see someone try to explain to me why UDDI isn't a complete piece of shit. Justify it - I'm listening.

No comments: