RE: Genericity, strong typing, SOAP-RPC, GRASP, and defining the Web

Hash: SHA1

> > Jeff Bone wrote,
> > However this ignores the fact that there's "power
> > > in large values" and that going to smaller, fine-grained  
> interfaces 
> > > with more specific types produces tighter coupling and
> > > non-linear  growth of compositional complexity.
> >
> > I don't think it's anything like that clear cut.
> >
> > Types don't merely have complexity costs, they have complexity 
> > benefits as well.

> Miles Sabin wrote:
> Note that we're talking about compositional or architectural 
> complexity, not complexity in general.  I would suggest it's 
> very clear cut that having an open-ended and arbitrarily 
> large set of types introduces compositional or architectural 
> complexity;  it's the genericity of e.g. HTTP across all 
> Http-typed resources that enables caching proxies and other 
> interesting intermediaries to be usefully plugged in ad hoc 
> and post facto.

> Jeff Bone:
> > A type is a constraint: it sets bounds on the range
> > of acceptable values of any instance of that type, and as such 
> > _reduces_ complexity.
> Without a doubt.  

It would help if y'all said what you mean by complexity.

Bill de hÓra 

Version: PGP 7.0.4


Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2002 07:02:41 UTC