Jacqui Caren wrote:

>Roman Rokytskyy wrote:
>
>
>>But if nobody has practical experience in ASN.1, I think we have to
>>forget about it anyway.
>>
>>
>
>
>If you intend to rewrite the wheel though you should be able to
>take working code from an open source application such as
>ISODE - if it still exists.
>
>I have to say that I find it amusing that the team are proposing
>to re-invent a 15+yr old wheel :-)
>
>
>

That's a very good question -- why, indeed, re-invent the wheel? Let's
look at the history of the wheel.

Nobody knows when the wheel was invented or by whom. It may have been a
simple section of log, but was probably built up from thick planks
fastened together. It's a good guess that the invention of the wheel
was following by the invention of the wood lathe about 15 minutes later.

The simple solid plank wheel was re-invented to become a complex
built-up wheel consisting of a hub, radial spokes, and rim held
together with a heat shrunk iron hoop. This more sophisticate wheel was
lighter and stronger though, more expensive. It also required the
discovery of iron working. But despite it's sophistication, one size
didn't fit all. A carriage designed for speed required a large, light
wheel. A utility wagon needed capacity more than speed, so a less
efficient smaller, heavier built wheel was necessary. A chariot,
however, need a robust wheel, efficiency be damned, as experience
dictated that changing wheels in battle was not life span enhancing.

Railroads required another re-invention of the wheel, with a flange to
keep the wheel "on track" (so to speak) and a steel web in place of
spokes to bear a great deal more weight.

The development of the bicycle required a radical re-invention of the
wheel. Unlike earlier applications, torque in a bicycle is transmitted
through the spokes, necessitating the development of spokes tangential
to (rather than radial from) the hub. A century later, the front wheel
was re-re-invented following the development of the carbon fibre frame
when it dawned on some bright light that tangential spoking wasn't
required on the front wheel, and precious ounces could be saved by
reverting to radial spoking. The other problem facing the bicycle wheel
was how to the spring it. Earlier wheel related systems were sprung
from the axel, which was incompatible with the bicyle's control system.
The solution was the pneumatic tire that preserved both controllability
and the rider's back.

The original invention of the motor car sported wooden, radial spoked
wheels. It was rapidly learned that these we not able to carry the
shock of hitting a pot hole at speed. This lead to another wheel
re-invention, a one-piece, forged steel wheel containing the hub, web,
and rim.

The aeroplane required a minor re-invention to handle a several hundred
thousand pound aircraft slamming into a runway at 150 miles an hour that
had to come to a full stop in not much more than mile.

The classic roller skate required yet another re-invention of the
wheel. The classic roller skate is steered by controlling the angle
between the axel and the sole, changing the relative direction of the
axel. This required a flat wheel to keep the axel parallel to the
sidewalk or rink.

Inline roller skates required yet another re-invention of the wheel.
The wheels themselves we no longer part of the control system, so not
only was flatness not required, it was an obstacle to controllability.
On the other hand, the operators well being required positive contact
between the wheel and the surface. The break through was in the
material: high density, non-rigid plastic.

If you look at the development of transportation technology, you will
find that virtually every application of the wheel required adapting a
simple idea to specific circumstances and requirements. If the inventor
of the inline roller skate had tried to use a forged steel, flanged,
railcar wheel, it is unlikely he would have found the same degree of
commercial acceptance of his invention. If you look around at the
thousands of applications of the wheel, you will probably not find two
that share a common implementation.

Why re-invent the wheel? Because that's what engineers do -- apply
knowledge, creativity, and materials to solve specific problems.

Everytime a hear someone arguing against re-inventing a wheel, I hear a
fool trying to stop progress.

Second only to dogmatic religious hierarchies, the open source world
stands against new ideas, prefering tradition (pools), external
authority (the SQL committee), and theft (if SQL Server does it that
way, so must we) to innovation. This really bugs me.

So lets go back to data streaming message formats. Do you have
something to offer, or are you just objecting to a new idea?