RE: LC54 Proposal

> > BTW, what happened to the original intention (caught in the issue) of
> > indicating compatibility on interfaces as opposed to services? If you
> > want to go in this direction, wouldn't starting at interface be
> cleaner?
> > 
> 
> I think the group ended up saying that an interface extension is a
> compatible extension.  

David, isn't this enough for the purposes of LC54? 

There may be two kinds of compatibility here, only one caught in LC54 as
it stands now:

Interface compatibility, what I would call the compatibility of intent
or function, which apparently is guaranteed for operations of interfaces
that are being extended by other interfaces.

Service compatibility, similar to target resource (R.I.P.) which says:
"if you call this common operation on either of these services, it's
going to do the same thing in the same place". The same seems to be the
intent of endpoint compatibility.

If service compatibility is not what you want, interface compatibility
should suffice for your purposes, because if two services don't share an
interface, information about their compatibility will be useless to
automated tools anyway. 

If, on the other hand, you do want service compatibility, it seems to me
you're reopening the target resource debate.

Please clarify, which is it you want? 8-)

Best regards,

Jacek

Received on Thursday, 21 April 2005 07:45:02 UTC