Gervas Douglas wrote:
> Hang on a moment, Gregg - were you at the next table?? Who said Anne
> had made such a statement?
>
> JavaSpaces might be wonderful technology, but it does store Java
> objects to the best of my knowledge. Yes I know you can wrap other
> non-Java stuff up, but it will still require certain Java features
> such as a JVM, surely. I believe it is customary to write a JS
> implementation in Java.
Last I checked WS-* required a computer, a network and some software written in
a specific language that would run on said computer. How is Javaspaces
different from that.
In WS-* applications the conversion from native data types to SOAP or some
other
wire or invocation layer representation is done smack in the middle of the
application. What difference does it make where that conversion is done?
We don't all reinvent TCP for each application, we use the operating systems
ability to wrap our data into TCP frames for transporting to another computer.
We have no problems with allowing the operating system to do some wrapping and
coverting (network byte order for example). So why is there all of this
friction and fright over a conversion happening closer to the service so that
its less impact on the client implementation than it would be if the client had
to meet the services requirements before the data exited the clients computer?
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/
