--- In [email protected], Gregg Wonderly
> This is an example of how an existing system can be modified in a
backward
> compatible way.
>
> Generic interfaces using extremes such as
>
> public Object doIt( Object val ) throws Exception...
>
> provide mechanisms for dealing with certain limitations. However,
if you then
> go ahead and provide interpretation of 'val' on the called side and
the return
> value on the calling side, you are simply moving the normal
invocation layer of
> a native transport system into your application. The question is
whether this
> is adding value, complexity, cost or what.
+1
An overly generic interface "solves" the issue by punting on it and
letting someone else deal with the problem. However, bits on the wire
don't have instrinsic value - It's the end to end semantic
interaction of components that counts.
The success of generic interfaces on the web is a common theme in this
forum. But the web doesnt provide any semantic interpretation. That is
left to the lump of grey matter sitting between our ears. SOA and
distributed computing are all about machine to machine interaction
without the aide of a human acting as the interpreter. Is the generic
interface strategy really moving us towards a solution, or are we just
chasing our tails?
The whole WS-* thing seems like such a giant leap backwards towards
the end goal of creating reliable, distributed and autonomous systems.
I don't know what the answer is - but I believe that Jini is at least
a step in the right direction.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
