Hi Stephan,
> See <http://www.martinfowler.com/ieeeSoftware/published.pdf> for the
> source of that term.
Interesting reading, thanks for the pointer.
However, I think Fowler uses the term "published" in a different meaning
than we do. While he doesn't clearly define the terms and their
difference, the sentence closest to a definition for "published"
("public" should be unmbiguous for anyone knowing Java or C++ or ...) is:
<cite>
However, things rapidly change if I put that software out on the Web as
a component, and other people, whom I don't know, start building
applications on top of it.
</cite>
That is, he considers an interface published as soon as he loses control
over (read: comprehensive knowledge about) who / which component uses
it. Makes sense, IMO.
But, with this definition, all our interfaces are published, even those
not tagged with the "published" keyword. Thus I continue to think that
our usage of "published" is unfortunate.
> (Frank, I always implicitly assumed you do like
> what Fowler writes, as you two look so ... similar.) :)
ROTFL :)
Ciao
Frank
--
- Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
- Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice -
- OpenOffice.org Database http://dba.openoffice.org -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
