We’re going back to the original schedule of last Tuesday of the month. Here’s the excerpt from the ning site (on which you should go and register right now to let us know how many of you will be coming).

This month, TeQUILA\UK host us and ThoughtWorks will feed us! That means free pizza, thanks guys!

An hour-long timeboxed openconf-style session where the one subject being discussed will be chosen by the attendants. And of course all this in a pub environment, fueled with just enough beer to make everybody participate.

The event is from 6pm and we start at 7:30pm sharp (ish).

Hope to see you there.

There are now two DDD events you need to vote for.

• DDD Belfast has opened votes this morning http://www.developerdeveloperdeveloper.com/belfast/Users/VoteForSessions.aspx
• DDD Scotland is opened for voting as well http://developerdayscotland.com/main/Default.aspx

I have submitted some session to the three events, so if you want to see me rant, vote for my sessions!

Following my recent analysis of the Two-Tier Service Application Guidance, the P&P group contacted me and others to ask if we’d be interested in giving a hand to fix the guidance. Contrary to what I wrote on the original analysis, it’s not a beta 2 (the AppArch guide is, but this is not part of it).

So far, it looks like three different options are going to be pursued:

1. Fix the existing document and keep the proposed architecture
   I  am contributing what I can to get the specifics of REST fixed so the REST bits are accurate. I however disagree with the general architecture (this guidance is not a resource-oriented architecture but a service-oriented one on which a REST-friendly facade is added) and won’t recommend following that guidance.
2. Create a new guidance that is compatible with best practices that alt.net promotes
   This part is about using a different solution, which I hope will have a strong resource-first vibe. I’ll probably provide a version using OpenRasta.
3. Create a DDD-specific guidance for Domain-Driven-Design approaches
   This part I won’t take much part into.

That’s the current thinking. P&P has been fairly responsive and open to criticism on the document, which has been positive. There’s been a lot of discussions ar0und terminology, and I believe those discussions are important to have, because terminology is what we use to communicate with one another.

We’re working towards getting the main issues fixed, and I’m hopeful that, once this is all done, we’ll have made those documents useful and accurate. Hopefully, next time there will be an outreach before publishing a draft. I’d also rahter the word draft was used instead of beta, but that’s splitting hair so I’ll stop there :)