- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:30:22 -0400
- To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 05:37:12PM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote: > Perhaps I missed the point about connectors somehow, but I was thinking that interfaces can be generic or specific, that technology doesn't constrain them. > > Service oriented architectures, in particular, support any level of granularity that you want to define. > > It's a constant point of discussion -- should I write a generic(generic) interface and put all the application logic within the called program? Or should I write a customerUpdate(customerData) interface and send only messages to the interface that pertain to updating customer data? Yes, that is most definitely a point of discussion!! So much so, that IMO, the Web's principle value add is one answer to that question for a very large class of applications! With software in general, we make it more reusable by generalizing. That comes at a cost, but not in terms of what can be done, only in terms of things like performance and optimization. So, using your customerUpdate example, customerUpdate() is only good for updating customer information, so any optimzation will be specific to that operation. A more general update() method would permit larger network effects to be realized by widening the domain of applicability of any optimization made to messages of that type. The more general, the greater the network effects. The Web generalizes the world into two (I'm oversimplifying, slightly) types of messages; safe retrievals with GET, and making of commitments with POST. > I must have missed the question because I thought this was what you were asking. Close enough. 8-) I think focusing on the above point is more fruitful at this point. MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 18:18:18 UTC