- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@rbii.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:26:17 -0400
- To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Monday 08 July 2002 10:08 am, Walden Mathews wrote: > I'm not sure I appreciate the distinction between "layering" and > "inheritance" in this context. When you "layer" TCP over IP, you > "inherit" internetworking. When you "layer" HTTP over TCP, you > "inherit" streamed data and connection semantics and internetworking. Whether it's inheritance (IMHO) depends largely on the exposed semantics/type. Layering tends to hide, inheritance tends toward agrregate interfaces. Nothing is ever quite black and white though. > The practice of "dressing up" objects to look like something else > seems more like a short term fix than an architecture choice, and > my understanding is that this group is searching for durable > design choices, not quick fixes. A facade pattern is useful in many contexts, not always as a short term fix. > You seem to be saying that non-networked software is rife with the > decay of the short term fix, and that therefore networking software > must follow suit. In a sense you are predicting the failure of > the architecture group. (!) Is that a correct reading? You're putting words in my mouth.... I was just identifying some of the pressures that could potentially lead to HTTP being wrapped or layered upon. I'm not sure how that equates to failure.
Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 21:25:41 UTC