JP, That's a good example. I suppose there may be others as well.
I wonder how many such identical (or close enough) services might a typical company encounter in their service portfolio. But I think I erected a strawman anyway. The original point by Ashraf was to be able to change the implementation, which is different from swapping one out for another. -Rob --- In [email protected], "jp_morgenthal" <jpmorgent...@...> wrote: > > Rob, > > Your pragmatism is partially correct here, but the effort need not be > significant. From my favorite example, consider switching from FedEx to UPS > for shipping. Most companies do this hundreds of times a day and the > difference is how they prepare the package for shipping, which ultimately > comes down to prepping the shipping label information. Yet, you can run the > shipping process identically and choose a different shipping provider based > on price with minimal overhead and effort as a single step. > > JP > > --- In [email protected], "Rob Eamon" <reamon@> > wrote: > > > > In other words, service interface is separate from service implementation? > > This is the core SO principle. > > > > I'm still bearish on the notion that a service implementation can be > > swapped out for another with zero consumer impact. I've never seen a > > meaningful implementation of anything be swapped out without significant > > effort. Some low-level technical components can and have been swapped out > > but that's not the level we're addressing here? > > > > -Rob > > >
