Re: Applications Messaging Standard

From: Alasdair Allan <aa-at-astro.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:28:11 +0000

Doug Tody wrote:
> If we try to think about this a bit more formally, what we need to
> define is merely an "interface" (e.g., in the sense of a modern
> language such as Java etc.) which provides certain well-defined
> operations with well-defined semantics. An "implementation" like
> the PLASTIC hub merely implements this interface. So long as some
> software implements the interface in a compliant fashion, it doesn't
> matter how it is implemented.

Well no. Are we going to use a hierarchical, peer-to-peer or hub based system? Before we decide on the message format, protocol for exchanging the messages and a transport standards for exchanging them over, then we really have to decide on what sort of topology we're talking about. There are fundamental differences between building a standard around an entirely peer-to-peer architecture, than building one which uses a central hub!

Al. Received on 2007-02-17Z01:28:47