Atlassian's documentation for integrating with JIRA through their webservices - while not non-existent - may as well be. I am having to guess what values are. I can't seem to find them through the UI. I am stuck on this error atm;

com.atlassian.jira.rpc.exception.RemoteValidationException: {} : [Security Level: Security Level is required.]

We are intergrating our system with different issue management systems so that if we have errors or things expiring on the queues we can throw them into one of the issue management systems so a human can look at them and determine the root cause. It took me a morning to knock together the client and the EARs. It has taken a day and a half to try and work out how to send the information JIRA wants and I am still stuck.

I am going to have to use their support system. I am not impressed. I remember one vendor we integrated with when we asked them details on how their stuff worked, the reply was; over and over; "Look at the WSDL". If you can imagine that in a thick Portugese accent that had heavy emphasis on the 'W'. WSDLs dont self carry documentation which is a failing of the SOAP/WSDL architecture in my opinion.

Atlassian outdoes themselves in this area though. Even the arguments to the webmethods are not well named. They are in0, in1, in2 etc in a webmethod. Fair dinkum. (more)

Self Portrait of my stubbly chin. There is plenty of gray in there these days too. (reply)

Self Portrait. (reply)

This flow chart from a Bruce Sterling speech popped up (flat form). The step after you sell everything that isn't beautiful, emotive or a tool is to buy the best bed and chair you can find.

My philosophy is similar, I tend to be minimalist in how I live. I don't have a TV for instance and our house is modernist, contemporary and miminalist. Most of the trapping of a pre-ought society we have dropped as well; ie we don't have a land line phone. There are some areas we don't compromise though.

We spend a lot of time working. We spend a lot of time sleeping. We spend a lot of time commuting as well though I would love to drop this time sink hole. The take away from that is:

1. I should have a kick ass job.
2. I should have a kick ass bed.
3. I should have a kick ass car.

We recently bought a tempurpedic bed. It has like an extra layer on top and everything. The bed was expensive, but, we spend eight hours a night on it. Having a good bed is imperative. I move jobs to make sure my happiness is maximized, but that is not unusual for the tech industry. My car is a Corvette and I love it. Though I would be happy if I could ride a bike to work everyday.

The flow chart has 'the best chair you can find" as well. That is a good permutation on the 'kick ass bed' part of the philosophy. Bad chairs can be crippling. I can recall watching the documentary Objectified. One of the designers made the comment; "Why do we make uncomfortable chairs anymore?" Very good question. It is a failing of design.

One of the comfier chairs I have sat in (we have them in our office and dining room) are these Ikea chairs. They look good too. (reply)

The monsoon rains across Scottsdale Rd in the late evening. (reply)

An afternoon sun shower blowing through as part of the Phoenix monsoon season. (reply)

I am a big fan of the Curtiss P40 Kittyhawk. For me it is the epitome of American design, engineering and manufacture of that time, but also up until the modern day. The Kittyhawk wasn't the greatest, but it was rugged, sufficiently fast, decently maneuverable, kicked a punch, was flexible and was in numbers when it was really needed.

It was fortunate for the Allied air forces that America had such a good aircraft available in the quantity it did with the P40. Russia, Britain, Australia and others used the P40 in large numbers in areas where they could not supply their own aircraft. In Australian terms, there was a time during the battle of Port Moresby where one fighter squadron stood between the Japanese advance and Australia. It was 75 Squadron RAAF and they were flying Kittyhawks.

The photo above is of a 75 Squadron RAAF Kittyhawk at Milne Bay in September 1942. Milne Bay was a very important battle for Australia, and the allies. The sequence of events to this stage had been that the Japanese had advanced through Thailand, Indonesia and New Guinea to the point where if Port Moresby or the Solomons fell; then Japan would have cut Australia off from the US. It probably would not have changed the outcome of the war, but it would have been very unpleasant for Australia, and would have put the American military machine back a couple of years.

The sequence of events that led to Milne Bay being pivotal was the large carrier battle off the North East coast of Australia known as the Battle of the Coral Sea. The Japanese carrier force was protecting an invasion flotilla of Japanese ships that were heading for Port Moresby.

The American carrier force inflicted sufficient damage on the Japanese carriers that the invasion force was turned back. The Japanese decided to try another route, in order to isolate Australia and cut the lines of communication between Australia and America the Japanese sent an invasion force by sea to Milne Bay on the underside of New Guinea where it was intended the Japanese Army would capture the air base there and then continue on to Port Moresby.

Defending Milne Bay was an Australian Army garrison of approximately 9,000 and supported by 75 and 76 Squadrons RAAF flying Kittyhawks. The terrain was typical New Guinea jungle, but the strip of land between where the Japanese landed and the airbase was pinned between the ocean and the mountains with only a couple of yard between the two. Fighting was compact, hand to hand, confused and bloody.

After a month of fighting, the Australian Army pushed the Japanese back into the sea. This was the first time in World War II that a Japanese invasion force had been turned back. It should have been a massive political win for Australia in a theatre where they were going to be over taken by American arms. This advantage was squandered by Blamey and Chifley and ignored by the self absorbed MacArthur.

Interestingly the Australian flyers had worked out that having a red circle on their aircraft in mimickry of the British roundal was a liability as American pilots, and ground gunners of all persuasions, on seeing a red circle, would open fire. By the time 75 and 76 were fighting at Milne Bay they had removed the red circle from the upper roundels and replaced it with a large white circle bordered by blue.

In early 1943 this became standard on all Australian aircraft for all the roundals and the flash on the tail fin. Interestingly, by late 1943 the USAF's fifth air force was having similar issues and ordered that all fighter aircraft paint their tail fins white. Australian aircraft from that point on painted their tail fins white and usually painted the front of their wings white as well. It was more dangerous friend on friend by that time. Air superiority had been achieved.

Another interesting thing from the top photo of the 75 Squadron Kittyhawk is that in late 1942 the RAAF hadn't handed out squadron codes. For instance later in the war No.75 Squadron was given the squadron code GA. But in 1942 No.75 and No.76 shared the same aerodrome and only had aircraft codes; A,B,C, etc on their aircraft. To avoid confusion, No.75 put a large white line, that looks like a sans-serif I in front of the aircraft code to distinguish their aircraft from No.76's. (reply)