|Absolute Value|

Working with a few code generation toolkits recently has sparked some thoughts on how the usage of code generation impacts the client that might purchase the software.  In the specific use case of an ISV writing software and then selling the IP to a customer there is a potential for future issues if code generation was used.

Code generation is normally used to cut down on the repititious code that follows certain patterns.  Stored procedures, data access layers and in some cases CRUD style forms/webforms are perfect examples where the code required can be inferred by database structures or other methods.  There are many examples of toolkits available on the internet such as CodeSmith, LINQ to SQL and CSLA.NET.  I can’t remember the last time I’ve written database access code and I don’t see why you should be doing this work yourself.

In the case of purchased/freely available toolkits, you can, on the sale of the software, package the template you used to generate the code with the software itself.  However, in the case of code generation where the tool used is not freely available, this puts the client in a bind for future releases if the ISV is not contracted for the work or the ISV is not available to provide the neccessary resources.  One could say that the client could simply copy the patterns in the generated code but in reality this will be time consuming and wasted time and effort.

Do you think that ISV’s should bundle their code generation tools with the source code as a matter of course?  Its an interesting topic and interesting implications for both ISVs and their clients.

Currently in the business world, paper reigns supreme.  The stats that companies come out with how many emails are sent per day can safely be ignored by the one caveat of email.  Most businesses and government agencies will only accept originals of documents or copies that have been authorised.

With the advent of digital signatures (and yes, this is from years ago) you could now establish proper trust around email and the contents.  It is possible using a “Web of Trust” model to properly show and audit the validity of any given email.  The ability to do this applies to most digital media.  I.e. we can sign or encrypt anything digital but mostly in this article email is the primary subject.

The problem that I see with digital signatures and encryption keys is the fact that they are not easy to setup.  Getting a key for your email address is not a simple task to the ordinary user and continues to be so years after PKI came about.  Outlook, Thunderbird and Opera (as examples) do not make the procedure any easier for “my mom”.  For the ordinary user, the process for importing a digital signature is simply too big a wall to climb and results in a very low rate of signup for keys and even fewer realising the value in them.

My thinking on this is two fold.  The first part is to make it “compulsory” for domain owners to provide digital signatures and keys to every mail client.  This can be started at the webmail providers.  Hotmail, GMail, Yahoo should all provide a digital signature on startup and allow the users to sign email and easily import their contacts’ keys on receiving an email from them.  This will at the very least raise the level of awareness in PKI.

Secondly, email clients need to make the ability to create and import a key be seamless.  There is nothing stopping Microsoft or Mozilla from partering with a PKI supplier such as OpenCert, Thawte or Verisign to allow keys to be created within the mail client and have them seamlessy integrated with the mail client.  And have the keys created without leaving the mail client.

If these two objectives can be met, the amount of email being sent that is either being signed or encrypted will hopefully increase at an exponential rate.  If more people rely on the PKI to ensure that the email they are receiving is either unaltered or has not been read by anyone else, the more pressue can be put onto businesses to accept emails as official documentation.

This article seems a little sugar coated to me but does put my point across.

As a huge fan of F1, I appreciated the efforts of Max Mosley was doing to make the sport better after the multiple seasons of Ferrari mass wins (I’m a supporter of Ferrari but their constant winning made it boring to watch.) By better I mean from a spectator’s point of view.
Today more announcements were made, a few I agree with and a few I think are ridiculous.

The changes:

• A single tyre manufacturer: This I believe in. Each team is at the mercy of the compounds created and a bad year for a tyre manufacturer (think Bridgestone 2005) ruins a teams chances of even scoring points.
• Removing the requirement of grooved tyres: Wonderful! Finally we can push these cars harder. Screw safety.
• A ban on spare cars: No opinion on this one. We’ll see if there are any ramifications during the year.
• A weight penalty of 15kg if an engine is replaced before the end of its two-race cycle: This is INSANE. A 15kg penalty? That pretty much kills your hopes of scoring a point if this happens.
• A restriction on testing to no more than 30,000km per team a year: Another one I’m not for or against. This is simply a money saving measure.
  
• Gearboxes to last for four races: Again, I don’t see the point. This is going to put incredible strain on the car and slow the pace dramatically when coupled into the 1 engine every 2 races rule.
• No engine developments for 3 years: This is interesting but I doubt it’ll solve the problem of spending money. The money that would have gone into the engine will now flow into making the car as aerodynamic as possible. How does this change anything?
  

So Max, you want a better spectacle? How about a points table at the end of the year that makes no sense? We’ve gone from the best driver to the team with the best realiabilty. No more focus on the technology of the sport, no more focus on the best driver at all. Maybe we can have a champion from Minardi?

Following on from Om’s post, are there any cafe’s or coffee shops like this in London? I used to spend at least one day a week in Starbucks doing that and I find I am very productive in that atmosphere. I would love to start this again, but haven’t found a nice spot and the closest Starbucks is always packed and loud.

From Om:

My own experience helping to organize the WebZine conference pretty much echoed this. No office space was rented, communication was primarily through email lists and a private wiki, and meetings were held at cafes with free internet, with notes and ideas quickly disseminated to those who couldn’t attend. When a contact was needed to help out with services such as advertising, sponsorships or donations, cell phones came out and calls were made, and issues were often resolved before the meeting was even over. Even during the conference itself, local cafes served as press rooms, panel development forums and, of course, somewhere to get some lunch.

Update:

Even Ben Metcalfe is in on this topic. Have a read.

Therapist = The Rapist

More like this:

• Who Represents?, a database for agencies to the rich and famous:
  http://www.whorepresents.com
• The Experts Exchange
  http://www.expertsexchange.com
• Looking for a pen? Look no further than Pen Island:
  http://www.penisland.net
• Power Gen Italy
  http://www.powergenitalia.com
• Mole Station Native Nursery
  http://www.molestationnursery.com>

Story from Firefishy

Damn coding conventions. I am coding some networking code and came across this warning from the compiler:

Local Variable sex is not used.

The variable “sex” is a Sockets exception so my coding conventions require it to be called sex. Hmmm.

I find this story today very ironic. Eminem recently cancelled a large quantity of tour dates as he said he is suffering from exhaustion. However, today the BBC reports that he is being admitted to rehab for addiction to sleeping tables.

Hmmm, I’ll let you guys work that one out.