Re: URC formats vs interfaces

Ronald E. Daniel (rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov)
Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:36:31 -0600


From: "Ronald E. Daniel" <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
Message-Id: <9510051036.ZM2660@whatthe.acl.lanl.gov>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:36:31 -0600
In-Reply-To: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)
	<masinter@parc.xerox.com> 
To: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte),
Subject: Re: URC formats vs interfaces
Cc: uri@bunyip.com

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: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov
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"