Yes, Gregg, but like it or not, there are some people who do not want to use Java. I believe some of them work in a town called Redmond. I guess that it is as much a political issue as a technical one.
Gervas --- In [email protected], Gregg Wonderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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/
