Monday, February 13, 2006

We need some better FLAs!

Having exhausted the world of Three Letter Acronyms some time in the last millennium, the IT industry is currently working its way through the four-letter type.

The TLA crusades are over. TCP beat SNA.... The HDD outlived the FDD.... The discerning traveller will even agree that LCY is better than LHR.... But the four letter wars have barely begun....

I've been debating the nature of SOAP and REST with some commenters on Bobby Woolf's excellent blog. I'm still trying to get my head around the subtleties; I'd certainly appreciate other contributions to the debate (from either "side"). However, something tells me that, in the end, REST just sounds cooler.

Naming matters :-p

7 comments:

James Governor said...

IBM SWG has gone stupid on this score.

ITCAM for SOA... give me a goddamn break

Henry said...

Well of course FLAs should yet defeat one of the TLAs you mention, if IATA codes give way to ICAO as planned. You may regret the lost opportunity of saying "flying to Lucy", but at least "EGLC" tells you which country you're in.

Over on this side, we're way ahead of you, BTW, with referential FLAs - the sign of mastery of the art: one of our communicating organizations begins with N and we have a SNOG (SOAP N[=organization] Online Gateway).

But to return to the important matter of transport, wilfully ignoring whatever deep point you're making about REST vs SOAP... How many IATA codes for a well-defined transport endpoint (rather than a metropolitan area, a la LON) have never been routed to? Thinking in this case of QQP, or more laughably QQM, QQN, etc. Other countries with IATA-listed railheads tend to have the rail link aligned with the airport (AMS, CDG), or at least have some sort of rail service codeshare agreement (most notably in Switzerland). Are there others? Presumably the UK exceptions stem from plans for NOL Eurostar operation(?).

Richard Brown said...

re ITCAM:

I'm not even going to attempt to justify that acronym.

The product does sound great from what I've heard about it, however.

Richard Brown said...

How many IATA codes for a well-defined transport endpoint (rather than a metropolitan area, a la LON) have never been routed to? Thinking in this case of QQP, or more laughably QQM, QQN, etc.

And to think my readers were, outrageously, mocking the discussion of crowd-avoidance techniques. I bet they're laughing out of the other side of their faces now....

However, you do raise an interesting point. I was unaware that some stations had IATA codes. I can understand Waterloo and possibly Paddington (when they had check-in desks at the station) but it does seem a little excessive.

roo said...

You're right about REST vs SOAP. Handy up who would rather have some soap instead of a nice rest. Now if they'd gone with SOUP, perhaps things would be different.

roo said...

s/Handy/Hands cough cough

Richard Brown said...

Hmmm... Soup.....