# Re: URC formats vs interfaces

Ronald E. Daniel (rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov)
Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:36:31 -0600

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: William Y. Arms: "Re: Persistent Documents and Locations"
- Previous message: Daniel LaLiberte: "URC formats vs interfaces"

    From: "Ronald E. Daniel" <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>

    Message-Id: <9510051036.ZM2660@whatthe.acl.lanl.gov>

    Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:36:31 -0600

    In-Reply-To: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)

    	<masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    To: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte),

    Subject: Re: URC formats vs interfaces

On Oct 5, 10:49am, Daniel LaLiberte wrote:

> Regarding URCs and your canonical representation, that is certainly
> better than the N2 (conversion between representation pairs)
> alternative, but there is another alternative that should be
> considered also. Instead of returning data in any format, define an
> interface to the data.

I believe that is essentially what I am doing. The canonical
representation is an internal format, and a standard set of
procedures are defined for manipulating it. This is what I
would call an interface.

Different protocols can decide how that internal representation
and the operations will be encoded for sending on the wire, but the
single internal representation is what should make gateways easy
to construct.

    --
    Ron Daniel Jr.                email: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov
    Advanced Computing Lab        voice: (505) 665-0597
    MS B-287  TA-3  Bldg. 2011      fax: (505) 665-4939
    Los Alamos National Lab        http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel/
    Los Alamos, NM,  87545    tautology: "Conformity is very popular"

- Next message: William Y. Arms: "Re: Persistent Documents and Locations"
- Previous message: Daniel LaLiberte: "URC formats vs interfaces"