T
Thomas Mercer-Hursh
Guest
Stefan, I think you are missing two things here. One of them is fine because it is just a aversion for some things and a passion for others ... but not always remembering the context. Some of the stuff you write about is perfectly interesting in and of itself, but not necessarily relevant in the context of building enterprise class business applications. Of course, sometimes it is relevant, but just new words for something that has actually been around for a long time. I readily agree that the ABL community needs to think about architecture a lot more than it does, but I think this should be grounded in where we are and what we have available now, what we can do with that, where we would like to go from here, and what we need to do that. The local thing that you are missing is that the CCS effort explicitly excluded architecture from its mandate beyond defining interfaces for the components, which one has to do to have specified anything. I wish that were not the case since I think that improving the architecture of our legacy systems is one of our most important challenges, but it is the choice they made. So, really, there is no architecture here to argue about, only pieces. One can imagine how those pieces are likely to be used in real systems, but really, that is up to the person using them. So, really the only architectural criticism which is appropriate is to say that one would like to use a component in a particular way, but the current definition of that component presents an obstacle to that use.
Continue reading...
Continue reading...