Whay are the arguments for your preference for service models and generic distrinuted technology?
Gerard -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, arts Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252 544896 M: +31 654 792800 On 9-sep-2005, at 11:51, Thomas Beale wrote: > I missed this post this morning, but it hits the nail right on the > head. The problem to be solved is protocols. They can be defined in > the form of: > - protocol definitions, as in the telecom industry, to which Bernie > refers above > - in terms of service interfaces, which can be designed to > implement intended protocols of communication > They can be implemented in terms of: > - in message definitions, where different parts of the message, and > different message types explicitly implement a protocol definition. > - in generic distributed object technology, e.g. RPC, Corba etc, > where the messages are defined and created by magical tools which > read the input service interface definitions to determine what the > packets must be > - in generic messaging technology. > > Personally, I believe we should be using service models and generic > distributed technology. > > - thomas beale > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20050915/eb74e718/attachment.html>
