> > One of the requirements for an IETF (Internet Engineeering Task Force) > standard is that there be at least two interoperable implementations > with different code bases. Obviously, the IETF standards process isn't > directly relevent to VistA, but I think the principle is a good one. To > be considered stable, I think VistA should be required to run on at > least two independent MUMPS implementations, and they should be able to > communicate (e.g., via TCP/IP). For example, it wouldn't do if Mailman > on one platform was unable to exchange mail with a peer running on the > other platform due to idiosyncrasies in I/O or socket handling.
This sounds like a fine idea. Do you think the operating system that the M implementation is running on should be taken into account? That might be a way of forcing two different codebases for the stuff that isn't in the M implementation, such as the TCP/IP stack... David Whitten ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
