The protocol should be part of the technical contract of a service, kind of like what the WSDL is today for web services. The formal contract for the service wouldn't state the protocol (IMO). - Amit
If you are not the intended recipient of this message (including attachments), or if you have received this message in error, immediately notify us and delete it and any attachments. If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from Edward Jones, please send this request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You must include the e-mail address that you wish not to receive e-mail communications. For important additional information related to this e-mail, visit www.edwardjones.com/US_email_disclosure ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Eamon Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:11 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Goodson & Jason on Building a Data Services Layer --- In [email protected] <mailto:service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com> , JP Morgenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rob, > > A flat file interface is a perfectly acceptable service > interface, > however, using that definition, what separates a protocol from a > service interface? Hmm. I wasn't aware that protocol needs to be separated from service interface. Isn't protocol *part* of the interface? I guess we should be more precise too--flat file interface speaks only to the message format I guess. How that file is transported is another matter. Perhaps via HTTP. Or FTP. Or by simply dropping the file into a particular directory in any number of ways. -Rob
