User talk:Dlwl

Community and Communications related

ÁBold text

Headline text

Business Analysis and Modeling

Anyone using POSD (Process Oriented System Design) much? Like to hear from IDEF0 users whether this method can indeed represent complex interactions better than IDEF (and can coexit with IDEF0), as claimed by Graham Pratten at http://www.prattens.co.uk/posd/TALKS/SEBC.PPT

Microsoft Technology related

Other Computer Programming related

Computer Security related

Hi, it's Bob Breedlove from the SOA page. Sorry for being so dense, but abbreviations (e.g. "WikiP") sometimes throw me. I have not done a great deal with the Wikipedia so I wasn't really up on all that can be done. I'd be glad to correspond with you, but I am unsure just how much time I will have so be patient with me. You can also e-mail me at breedlov (at) winfirst (dot) com to get my attention.

http://tabletpcreviewspot.com/default.asp?newsID=376 computer associates eTrust EZ Antivirus one year free

Other Computer related

Yahoo SOA group

Software vs architectural patterns historical discussion involving John Vlissides, Ward, et al

See post Dec 2 to tech target ESB proving to be an SOA essential.

--> David contacts please leave notes in this section and below here <---

Name / email / other contact info:

Matters related to Business_process_management

Includes Business_process_reengineering concerns

notes on Service_oriented_architecture

Dragos Manolescu OOPSLA SD on service orchestration patterns (http://micro-workflow.com/PDF/JAOO2005-Orchestration.pdf) and sample chapter on SOA (http://orchestrationpatterns.com/soaDefined).

Gregor Hohpe sample chapter on "message channel", book "Enterprise integration patterns"

http://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com/eaipatterns.html

1 Implementing individual Web services Creating services from tasks contained in new or existing applications 2 Service-oriented integration of business functions Integrating services across multiple applications inside and outside the enterprise for a business objective 3 Enterprise-wide IT transformation An architected implementation enabling integration across business functions throughout an enterprise 4 On Demand Business Transformation Broad transformation of existing business models or the deployment of new business models

Business process driven My business processes need to tap into resources, and each activity requires the invocation of IT functionality; I want that functionality to be available in a flexible, replaceable way. Top-down Tool-based MDA I want to define a model (business model) and then let my tools generate the detail for me. Top-down Wrap legacy I have existing systems I have been investing heaviliy on, but they are not resilient. I want new functionality added quickly, but these systems are partitioned. They are silos where functions are locked into them. Bottom-up Componentize legacy Decompose the monolithic legacy systems into modules using compiler-based tools. Bottom-up Data-driven Provide access to information using services without having to expose schemas or implementation decisions on the provider side. Data-focused Message-driven "Just want to have these systems integrate, communicate, over standard, non-proprietary protocols." Service-Oriented Integration of Applications and Systems

above is 28Sep view by Ali Arsanjani at http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/tip/1,289483,sid26_gci1128076,00.html

What they're disagreeing about are things like whether to encapsuate the service invocation messages behind an API or expose the messages directly to the service consumer, whether to handle reliabiility and transaction integrity down in the service infrastructure or up in the application layer, whether to have the service semantics described by human-readable documents or machine-processable ontologies, and so on. But if one looks at the messages, exchange patterns, and data exchanged, a lot of these differences tend to blur into the background.

In the case of distributed component architectures, the shortcomings we set out to fix include the following:

* Vendor lock-in. Many DC architectures were based on proprietary protocols and implementations. In contrast, standards-based protocols support (at least in theory) free interoperability between multiple vendor products.
* Tight coupling. DC architectures typically link components directly to one another, making the solutions brittle. An asynchronous, document-oriented style of interaction allows more independent variability between components [3].
* The Transparency Illusion. Distributed components promised to hide remote communication from the developer by making the remoteness "transparent". While the basic syntactic interaction between remote components can be wrapped inside a proxy object, it turned out that dealing with partial failures, latency, and remote exceptions could not be hidden from the developer. It turned out that 90% transparency was actually worse than no transparency because it gave developers a false sense of comfort.
* Complexity. DC architectures extend the rich, but complex interaction between objects across the wire. One object can control the lifetime of remote objects, pass references, and rely on polymorphism and inheritance. This model turned out to be quite complex given the inherent complexity that distributed architectures add into the mix.
* Call Stack. While a call stack is an enormous convenience for monolithic applications it can quickly turn into a liability for loosely coupled, distributed applications. Waiting for a remote component to complete a task before continuing execution at the source tends to make distributed architectures unresponsive and brittle.
* Connectivity. Most DC architectures require reliable, permanent connectivity between components. They do not work well over wide-area, intermittent networks such as the Internet or mobile networks.

Note that some of these problems are inherent in the architectural style (e.g., tight coupling) while others are merely byproducts of popular implementations of the style (e.g., vendor lock-in)

above from Michael Champion

An architectural style is a coordinated set of architectural constraints that restricts the roles/features of architectural elements and the allowed relationships among those elements within any architecture that conforms to that style.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=%22architectural+style%22+%22architecture+approach%22&btnG=Search

Thomas Manes http://www.public-cio.com/newsStory.php?id=2005.09.19-96674

Burton Group recommends that, to succeed with SOA, enterprises must address all three, one technical; two behavioral:

SOA infrastructure: The Web services framework may be appropriate for building point-to-point connections, but it's not quite ready for true SOA. Advanced capabilities -- particularly policy-based management and control -- are still being defined. For the moment, an enterprise must adopt proprietary policy administration and enforcement solutions until policy standards mature.

Design: SOA requires a different approach to application design; therefore, an enterprise must train developers in SOA design principles and best practices.

Culture: Most organizations' incentive systems are in opposition to SOA; therefore, an enterprise must institute new incentives to encourage the adoption of SOA.

Burton Group research director Anne Thomas Manes says: "Despite agreement that SOA will enable better flexibility and agility, there's still debate as to what exactly SOA is and how to implement it. As an architectural style, SOA is a set of design principles and best practices whose goal is to develop reusable services."

The report details how, while core concepts behind SOA focus on loose coupling, the industry has not yet codified SOA principles and practices into well-defined design patterns. It concludes practitioners are still learning, and raging debates prevail.

"The road to SOA is not so smooth," says Manes. "SOA requires good planning and willingness to change."

Other matters related to Organization, culture, etc

Found this stuff on C2

   * page called  PlagiarismInSoftwareDiscussionWithCostin

[ edit note: ]Renamed the initial page because you didn't attempt much to defend your points of view, you have a singular voice on the subject, and you use a made up sense of the loaded word "plagiarism". Plus, your claim is factually wrong: even by your liberal interpretation of the word, plagiarism is encouraged in other domains as well (think generic drugs, etc). If Topmind has TopOnSyntax you should have RkOnPlagiarism as well.

Thank you for your understanding. --CostinCozianu

And I undid your rename given that I consider <name>onWhatever to be an antipattern. When someone else bothers to speak up about plagiarism in software, then we'll talk. Until then, there's no proof whatsoever that my definition of the term deviates in any way from standard usage or that it's wrong in any way. And I don't need to defend my position until someone attacks it, which nobody has. And I used plagiarism because 'copy and paste' and 'rape and paste' are already taken, and refer to entirely different things. Finally, generic drugs is an engineering endeavour devoid of creativity, as you should well know. Which is more or less the case for the whole pharmaceutical industry. -- RK

This is complete BullShit, and you know it.

To begin with, plagiarism is unethical and in many cases illegal. It's not consider acceptable and not defended in software, this is your made up BullShit, has no correspondence with any reality and you have not shown it by any stretch of imagination, nor even have you bothered to make up your case. The use of this loaded word is the hallmark of low level trolling.

And yet an example was duly produced. In fact, the example preceded the page in time. Your denial of the bare facts doesn't say much for your being in touch with reality.

- The only example produced was in your wet dreams. RichardKuliszFanClub helps establish who is in touch with reality and who is not.

Second, you cannot impose your fringe view just by picking a page title. If nobody else speaks about plagiarism in software is because nobody else considers it a rampant problem, case closed. I speak on this subject: you're a pathetic liar, a delusional mind in desperate search for attention, so you use WardsWiki as the favorite place to perform MentalMasturbation in public. Is that good enough speaking on this subject ? Find at least one other person to agree with you that there's "plagiarism", and you may have some shadow of a case, but until then it's your usual intelectual dishonesty crying out in public "I'm RichardKulisz and I demand attention:. You also created more idiotic pages ProgrammersAreCriminals. And now you'd like to have editorial control of this and that page as well, just because nobody else bothers to deal with your moral turpitude. How would you like somebody to create a page called TheMoralBankruptcyOfRichardKulisz ? Yet you claim that you should have control because nobody else speaks on an idiotic dishonestly title chosen by you ?

It's not a fringe view. The definition of plagiarism very much includes things other than verbatim copying. Nobody but you would deny this. Again, this is you denying the bare facts. You're nowhere near as vicious as when some cherished belief of yours gets attacked and you have nothing to defend it with.

You misconstrue pathetic handwaving for critique ? Just find one more looser to agree that you met your BurdenOfProof for showing that there's "plagiarism" in software or that ProgrammersWAreCriminals. You bet I am not pleasant when I deal with frauds who want to reduce the C2 wiki to crap to suit their purpose.

And so what if I demand attention to a subject by using provocative language? That's part and parcel of having an attention economy.

You can do it on your own "principled wiki" that you claimed you'd set up, and yet you failed miserably so now you;re back to ytour idiotic plan of stealing this wiki. Get real, buddy. It's more likely that Ward will pull the plug or make it read only than to leave this wiki as a platform for every other looser in desperate need for attention to misappropriate. And the more you choose to fight, the less chances you have to complete BlueAbyss by 2008, so you'd be the laughing stock of everybody and you'll get another depression.''

The fine philosopher in you cannot recognize the usage of the classic why do you beat your mother fallacy ? Please spear us the cheap melodrama, Richard.

Yawn.

If you want to impose a NewSpeak agenda by picking up idiotic page names and then wrestle editorial control, fine, you can have RichardKuliszOnPlagiarism RichardKuliszOnProgrammers, and whatever suits your crappy goals. Maybe that's why you don't like the idea of WikiChangeProposal because it would take away from wannabes like you the undeserved attention you try to steal through dishonest means. You may think is an anti-pattern, but it's in no way worse because there are fringe views defended by loony obssessed people in absence of any logical arguments and any pretention to serious discourse or fair debate. Why do you think you are entitled to have editorial control over this idiotic page ? If you cannot find any logical argument it shall be deleted.

No, I don't like the idea of your proposal to change wiki because it's totalitarian and fascist, incompatible with my values, and I'm convinced it will never work. If you want to make of it something else, well that again shows how far you're willing to divorce yourself from reality.

- That would be a mighty fine if you had some logical arguments to back it up. I'm willing to give up my ideas and the software I've written so far, if you can produce any kind of cogent, logical argument that WikiChangeProposal even runs the risk of being "totalitarian and fascist".

So, no, you haven't usurped WardsWiki as yet, nor are you even close. And don't even tempt "that crazy rabid asshole CostinCozianu" to try to make the case with WardCunningham that you should be banned one more time. You may have your moments of involuntary fun, but when you act your worst crap like in this case you are no different than Robert Abitbol.

Yawn.

Robert Abitbol sets the record straight

Since my name is mentioned here (by an anonymous coward), I'd like to set the record straight. C2 wiki, Ward's wiki is no different than your average wiki or forum or any collective tool on internet: if you're smarter than the rest, if you're more productive than the rest, right away you become a target. It's like you're the only nerd in a class full of hooligans and either you run for your life and you escape, or you stay and fight (like I did).

You'd expect that Ward Cunningham being the almighty creator of the wiki concept, he'd have set up a sort of mechanism so that good writers, nerds, guys with a superior intellect would not be attacked by a bunch of losers, by two of spades.

Well! Keep on dreaming! Ward Cunningham is fast asleep and he believes the best way to manage a wiki is to not manage it; to not do anything in other words. He has this thing about wabi sabi, the beauty of incomplete things which I call the beauty of half-ass jobs.

So you're on your own on Ward's wiki and you have to defend yourself since no one will come along to help you. Fair enough!

But then, you start defending yourself against a couple of two of spades who envy you, who envy your perspective, your charm, your wit. And the fact that you represent what they'll never be and worse that you outsmart them makes them even angrier.

What do those losers do then? They go see Ward and they complain about you. They find all kinds of faults in you: stupid stuff since you did not break any rules: you want to turn the wiki into Usenet, you use a lot of :-) and lols and such symbols and such assorted silliness...

Ward is a programmer and does not know the first thing about management or people; he is not a humanist; he does not know how to deal with people. All he sees is ones and zeroes; he is naive in other words. He takes whatever his gnomes say for cash and whatever they suggest he does.

Then he gets in contact with you and asks you kindly to leave his wiki; if you don't he bans you.

This is poor management. This is why his wiki is close to dead. The best writers have been chased by a clique made up of losers. And as expected losers have nothing to say; once they have chased the best writers, the place has become a cemetary.

But this is not only Ward's wiki that is affected by this phenomenon; most small wikis, forums etc. are.

What happens in the end? Bad management always leads to a bad product or a bad wiki or a bad anything.

Ward's wiki is nothing but a jungle where you're not even supposed to defend yourself. It's just a mismanaged wiki.

I told Ward Cunningham on many occasions that it's OK if he's incapable of making rules everyone follows; it's OK if his wiki is a jungle; but when you're in a jungle, you have to act like Tarzan. And that's normal!

No Cunningham does not want you to defend yourself. He is like some guy who watches from his balcony a guy being strangled by a bunch of thugs; instead of helping the victim or instead of calling the victim like any coward would do, Ward turns to the victim and says to him that he shouldn't make so much noise, his kids are sleeping and he threatens to kick him out of his street! :-)

Now, the opposite is true: good management always pays off. I have followed the birth of Wikipedia and I can say that Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger made damn sure such things never happen; and in the end they gathered the best and the most brilliant writers on their side of internet and look at the result! Whatever we type in Google, the first hits lead us here. It says it all! This is the biggest encyclopedia ever writtenand to achieve these results, it took excellent management!

About Ward Cunningham's great wiki achievements, I'd say he simply rushed to program what a lot of people had thought of programming: a full page editing site. He didn't event electricity, or some really important stuff. Just a site editor.

The category system was invented by Stan Silver and he definitely deserves a page on this wiki.

My advice to those who want to check out Ward's wiki: keep a low profile there; if you're a prolific writer, go to Wikipedia and avoid Ward's wiki. At Wikipedia, you'll be liked and appreciated. If you go to Ward's wiki you'll be eaten alive by the losers-sharks and if you resist, Ward will chase you out of his wiki cemetary.

How do you say cemetary in Hawaian.

-- Robert Abitbol

About Richard Kulisz

Now that I've set the record straight about myself I'll say this about Richard Kulisz:

I'm very well aware of Richard's perspective of history; his perspective is essentially Marxist and I am aware he tried to impose it here or he tried at least to invite you to also put this perspective among others. Since he does not dislike me (although we don't share the same perspective), I thought I could tell RK what I thought. And so I did on Ward's wiki. I told him that Wikiepedia perspective is very much center and if he wants to re-write history im a Marxist perspective, he is allowed to do so but not on Wikipedia. I understand RK eventually got the nessage and he retreated.

I've followed him on Ward's wiki and I believe the guy is an excellent thinker and he writes very well. The problem is he tends to insult people who don't think like him. This is called ad hominem attacks. I find them funny though but apparently others don't. :-) Oh well!

As for his sense of solidarity, those words are not in his dictionary; many times I came to his help and took his side but he never reciprocated. Not a true friend.

Now, about the reputation of hooligan others try to make for him; he is not; he is a scholar and an erudite; except that for him Karl Marx is God and this displeases a few people.

-- Robert Abitbol

About Costin Cozianu

This is another character. Not at all a bad guy if you ask me. He loves wikis! But he is a little singular you might say. A character of sorts...

He was born in Rumania and he or his family suffered very much under the Ceacescu rule. To the point that he developed a sort of trauma against anything communist. For him communism is the worse of evils.

Knowing his perspective, you might not be surprised to learn that Costin Cozianu the anti-communist and Richard Kulisz the Marxist are not the best of friends and that you might condider not inviting them to the same party. They are arch-enemies.

Now with these details, you'll understand better the characters on this page.

-- Robert Abitbol

About Dlwl

This is another likeable guy and I'm happy he found his thrill not on Blueberry Hill! but on Wikipedia. -)

David is passionate about management and he has started excellent pages on the subject on Ward's wiki. Like me, he was too brilliant for his own sakes and he greatly displeased the stewards put in place (at my recommendation!) by Ward. I never thought Ward Cunningham would ever nominate the worse hooligans as stewards (Earle Martin and two or three hooligan-friends among others); it is reminiscent of the Rolling Stones asking the Hells Angels to act as security guards in Altamont!

I thought Ward would for once show a good judgment at least in choosing stewards! I was wrong; he has been a complete disappointment all along!

David was banned by the Stewards and the fact that he was banned is in itself a compliment: it means that he is such a brilliant and prolific writer, that all the losers on Ward's wiki got jealous of him.

What's in store for David? He'll probably will write an excellent book on Management Patterns after he gets in contact with me. We gotta talk as Joan Rivers would say. :-)

And the beat goes on

Now now Costin, you don't really want your desperate cry for attention to be deleted, do you?

Now Richard, do you really want to be banned like Robert Abitbol ? You lie, you cheat, you're spoiling for an argument. You perfectly match the words of Ward on SensitiveOffTopic. So do you really want a showdown ? Where would your sorry ass cry for attention next ?

Go ahead and whine to Ward and we'll see who gets banned. But until then, please stop lying, cheating and spoiling for a fight.

End of above

None of the above

Re: Clueless occasional user queries

Purge is to clear the cache (Wikipedia:Purge). It can be used when something has changed but it does not seem to show and use Purge to fix this. "Sensitive" and any other names is still biased as considered by the community. For the dates and time, try these: {{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTH}} {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}. -- Zondor 15:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you can create your own user template like this User:Zondor/src which can be your signature. then you sign your pages with {{subst:user:zondor/src}}. in your case you can create user:dlwl/s and sign with {{subst:user:dlwl/s}} -- Zondor 20:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EA

Could you continue your contribution in EA in Enterprise_architecture instead of Enterprise_Architecture? Mahanchian 00:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]