On Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 09:21AM, "david_s_booth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >While I agree with the point that messages should be self-describing, >there is a difference between the semantics of a message body, and the >action that occurs as a result of it being received. The exact same >message body, having the exact same semantics, can legitimately cause >different actions depending on who receives it and when. For example, >a LogOrder port may simply log the order, while a FulfillOrder port >may cause the order to be shipped.
The recipients method, port, or whatever we call it is part of the message, at least in the context of this discussion (IMO). [...] > I do not think that >self-describing message semantics are *dependent* on using a uniform >interface. That seems to me to be a different issue. Yes, Mark made that correction, too. It is not the uniformity that leads to self descriptiveness but the operations being standardized. So, if you have a standard FullFillOrder( Pizza pizza) method along with a standard Pizza payload type then the message is self descriptive. What is simply not enough is that the receiver publishes some IDL about its interface. Jan >David Booth >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
