From: "Ronald E. Daniel" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <9510051036.ZM2660@whatthe.acl.lanl.gov> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:36:31 -0600 In-Reply-To: email@example.com (Daniel LaLiberte) <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com (Daniel LaLiberte), Subject: Re: URC formats vs interfaces Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org On Oct 5, 10:49am, Daniel LaLiberte wrote: > Regarding URCs and your canonical representation, that is certainly > better than the N2 (conversion between representation pairs) > alternative, but there is another alternative that should be > considered also. Instead of returning data in any format, define an > interface to the data. I believe that is essentially what I am doing. The canonical representation is an internal format, and a standard set of procedures are defined for manipulating it. This is what I would call an interface. Different protocols can decide how that internal representation and the operations will be encoded for sending on the wire, but the single internal representation is what should make gateways easy to construct. -- Ron Daniel Jr. email: email@example.com Advanced Computing Lab voice: (505) 665-0597 MS B-287 TA-3 Bldg. 2011 fax: (505) 665-4939 Los Alamos National Lab http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel/ Los Alamos, NM, 87545 tautology: "Conformity is very popular"