<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Changing Platform Rules</title>
	<atom:link href="http://info.rmatics.org/2009/10/28/challenges-for-social-media-applications/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://info.rmatics.org/2009/10/28/challenges-for-social-media-applications/</link>
	<description>Business, Healthcare, Informatics, Software - in the real world.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:44:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: William Crawford</title>
		<link>http://info.rmatics.org/2009/10/28/challenges-for-social-media-applications/comment-page-1/#comment-4160</link>
		<dc:creator>William Crawford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:38:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://info.rmatics.org/?p=465#comment-4160</guid>
		<description>But do note that this is a multi-author blog...

They&#039;re very different scenarios, however.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But do note that this is a multi-author blog&#8230;</p>
<p>They&#8217;re very different scenarios, however.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luxspes</title>
		<link>http://info.rmatics.org/2009/10/28/challenges-for-social-media-applications/comment-page-1/#comment-4159</link>
		<dc:creator>Luxspes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:26:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://info.rmatics.org/?p=465#comment-4159</guid>
		<description>I find it interesting that you think Microsoft treats its ISV partners pretty well because it gives lots of notice, and doesn&#039;t put arbitrary barriers to deployment or (specially) avoids random, substantive policy and feature swings but at the same time do not see the benefit of keeping Weld and its extensions (Seam) separated and backwards compatible with Seam 2.

I guess this is one of those inconsistencies that make life entertaining ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it interesting that you think Microsoft treats its ISV partners pretty well because it gives lots of notice, and doesn&#8217;t put arbitrary barriers to deployment or (specially) avoids random, substantive policy and feature swings but at the same time do not see the benefit of keeping Weld and its extensions (Seam) separated and backwards compatible with Seam 2.</p>
<p>I guess this is one of those inconsistencies that make life entertaining <img src='http://info.rmatics.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

