Michael Poulin wrote: > I recall JavaOne in 2001 when Web Services were announced by Sun as a > big thing. One of the populist interpretation of WS was > "interface-is-the-contract". Now, we are just dealing with marketing > oversimplification...
At some level, the interface is the contract. At other levels, the functionality and side effects are the contract represented by how different pieces of software "interface" with each othere. For some, the Graphical User "interface" is the contract, because it presents the set of things that they can do/have access to. I think it's insane to run around saying "the interface is not the contract" when "interface" has so many meanings. The "interface" is the contract. The problem is that without an architectural view, you don't see all the meanings of "interface" and hence have a hard time understanding the requirements that your "interface" presents to my "interface". Gregg Wonderly
