Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> Not sure if this brings anything to the debate, but loose coupling and the
> general interface is very much doable when you bring ontologies into the
> mix; by putting the semantics and versioning into an ontology level, you can
> create truly general interfaces used by many which doesn't change over time.

Again, we've had TCP for eon's, and people don't regularly decide that is the 
best layer.  There are many standard ontological layers that already exist. 
Some are part of programming language platforms such as the Java serialization 
implementation.  There's the whole CORBA layer, that's implemented by libraries 
available for lots of languages.  There's SOAP (cleans the crud off of a lot of 
things they tell me :-).  There's lots of choices.

What features are you finding missing that you think make a generic interface 
better?  One thing that I want to quantify is that the perspective of my 
response is in relationship to Jini.  I would create a separate, exported 
invocation layer implementation for a service which had specific transport 
requirements or invocation layer requirements.  Thus, I'd have no problem 
exporting a JERI implementation, a JRMP implementation, a JRMP/IIOP 
implementation and a SOAP implementation without changing my service or any of 
the other interfaces.

Are you using a language or platform that requires so much low level detail 
manipulation that you have resorted to doing all the work because nothing 
useful 
is done for you?

> Of course there are ontological problems about, but it certainly is a
> direction I'm taking these days, and maybe this is what Jan earlier also
> hinted at?

Maybe you can talk about the specific features of your implemenation which are 
addressed by other invocation layer implementations?

Gregg Wonderly




 
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/
 


Reply via email to