This post originated from an RSS feed registered with .NET Buzz by Scott Hanselman. Original Post: Steve Swartz reminds us of Indigo's intent Feed Title: Scott Hanselman's ComputerZen.com Feed URL: http://radio-weblogs.com/0106747/rss.xml Feed Description: Scott Hanselman's ComputerZen.com is a .NET/WebServices/XML Weblog. I offer details of obscurities (internals of ASP.NET, WebServices, XML, etc) and best practices from real world scenarios. Latest .NET Buzz Posts Latest .NET Buzz Posts by Scott Hanselman Latest Posts From Scott Hanselman's ComputerZen.com

Steve Swartz, an original COM+ Architect, now an Indigo Architect (who hasn't blogged it seems, in a while) had this to say when presented with some FUD around Indigo and its place in the world. (emphasis is mine)

I would want to differentiate between what Indigo actually is and what I might think of as ideal programming practice.

If you want to pass complex object graphs by value across tiers, you will be able to in Indigo. If you want to share types between client and server, you will be able to in Indigo. If you want to deploy proxy classes in MSI files, you will be able to in Indigo. If you want to marshal around references to service instances, you will be able to in Indigo. Each of these techniques involves additional coupling of one sort or another. Theoretically, minimizing coupling is good. Didactically, people who are teaching other people to program will always take a hard line against coupling. Practically, in the real world there’s always some coupling: how much is a matter of taste and situation.

When you speak about Indigo as a manifestation of a programming ideal (service orientation), it sounds as different from the existing products as a [pneumatic] nail-driver is from a hammer. In fact, Indigo as it feels under your hands is quite similar to the existing technologies.” 

- Steve Swartz in a private listserv 10/2004

>