>> I.e. as soon
>> as I am dependent on transport/transfer, I've introduced the 9th fallacy,
>> "Everyone speaks the same transport/transfer protocol as is hard coded in the
>> application."
>
> How is that a fallacy exactly? And how can agreement on
> ever-increasing layers of a stack be bad?
>
> Mark.
>
>
Not sure about the fallacy bit but agreement on more layers ultimately
means compromise of some form.
Each layer makes assumptions about usage in some way or another and when
writing code against it, I'll get less or more impedance mismatch
depending on how well my code does or doesn't fit with those assumptions.
This is the same tradeoff we see in all those frameworks and
particularly app servers where if what you're doing fits just right,
it's easy, otherwise it gets harder the further away from the original
design assumptions you get.
My two cents,
Dan.
SPONSORED LINKS
| Computer software | Computer aided design software | Computer job |
| Soa | Service-oriented architecture |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
