<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Empower</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.franktrindade.com/2009/07/08/empower/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.franktrindade.com/2009/07/08/empower/</link>
	<description>Agile, software and some nonsense</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:04:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Watcharapon</title>
		<link>http://blog.franktrindade.com/2009/07/08/empower/comment-page-1/#comment-67715</link>
		<dc:creator>Watcharapon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:24:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.franktrindade.com/?p=316#comment-67715</guid>
		<description>Mark,The paper shows a ptaretn which we in the SOAP space have been using for a long time to avoid the limitations and brittleness associated with WebMethod and its kin. The fact that the authors used messages to explicitly decouple business and integration domains is a good thing, even for POX-based solutions.The hyperbole in the paper about being POST-REST made me &quot;de-prest&quot; because I believe it muddies rather than clarifies an already confusing situation.If you can pare this hyperbole and rampant meme-isms from the paper, then you see the ptaretn is not so different from those we&#039;d use in Indigo (or indeed in certain WS transactions code :-)). Even the notion of using code + XStream metadata as a kind of contract is mirrored in WCF.So to the crux of the issue: I believe the authors did their work an injustice by coupling it to an ill-understood and completely pointless SOA versus REST-like argument. But the ptaretn, even if obfuscated, is sensible.Jim</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark,The paper shows a ptaretn which we in the SOAP space have been using for a long time to avoid the limitations and brittleness associated with WebMethod and its kin. The fact that the authors used messages to explicitly decouple business and integration domains is a good thing, even for POX-based solutions.The hyperbole in the paper about being POST-REST made me &#8220;de-prest&#8221; because I believe it muddies rather than clarifies an already confusing situation.If you can pare this hyperbole and rampant meme-isms from the paper, then you see the ptaretn is not so different from those we&#8217;d use in Indigo (or indeed in certain WS transactions code :-)). Even the notion of using code + XStream metadata as a kind of contract is mirrored in WCF.So to the crux of the issue: I believe the authors did their work an injustice by coupling it to an ill-understood and completely pointless SOA versus REST-like argument. But the ptaretn, even if obfuscated, is sensible.Jim</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: robertclaye</title>
		<link>http://blog.franktrindade.com/2009/07/08/empower/comment-page-1/#comment-1752</link>
		<dc:creator>robertclaye</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:12:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.franktrindade.com/?p=316#comment-1752</guid>
		<description>good blog..... people who believe in them and empower them as much possible, making “good” peer pressure be the driving power fo your business.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>good blog&#8230;.. people who believe in them and empower them as much possible, making “good” peer pressure be the driving power fo your business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

