On Wednesday 10 March 2004 22:37, Berin Loritsch wrote:
I am all in favor of *controlled* contracts. They provide a reasonable foundation to build with, and yet still alow for some amount of flexibility. No-one on this list has ever advocated complete hippy free-bird approach to development. I don't think that has ever been a question.
Are you suggesting that the 4 (out of 4 possible) different lookup semantics of ServiceManager is a desirable result of 'flexibility'? If so, we are on different trains, and will end up at different destinations...
Different lookup semantics? All I am saying is to concentrate on finding the right contracts, and don't draw lines where it doesn't make sense to.
Truthfully there is only one semantic: The key looked up should return the expected component. The differences in the containers is how to map that key to the component. With the meta-data, this is one way to close that gap.
To provide a useful
physical analogy, many bolts on an engine are specified to only be torqued
so much. If they are torqued to much (tightened down for our ESL folks),
then the bolt will either break or cause damage to the engine.
Your analogy (IMHO of course) sux big time. To use the same analogy, we are talking about "How big is the hole, plus/minus a particular tolerance?", and the answer you want to convey to the users is "Measure it for this particular hole (container) and make the bolt (component) fit accordingly."
And then you would be completely missing the point. Bolts come in pre-determined sizes and threadings (aka the interface). The specs would say to use a bolt size X threading Y and torque it to Z ft-lbs. If you already have a component that fits the interface, the only thing you need to know is if it can fit the contract. No measuring required.
The message I am sending to you, the developer, is to not have your tolerances so strict that only a select few providers could possibly satisfy it. That would be an achilles heel.
You come
off as sounding like you favor totalitarian contracts when I favor
something that doesn't restrict me too much.
Well, if buying a M8 bolt will fit an M8 nut, is a totalitarian attitude, YES then I fit into that category.
Let me give you another analogy; My parents bought a house, an old houers, where each window was manufactured on-site in accordance to the size of the hole that the brick-layers estimated with their eyes as 'reasonable'.
When we moved there, my parents had a nightmarre trying to match "standardized" sizes to each of the 46 windows of different sizes.
Freedom to flex standards only benefits the handicraft guy, and work against both consumers and industrialists.
Cheers, I have a train to catch...
Gee, I didn't realize I was a long haired hippy prevert that bucks the system and hates strong contracts or typing. Seriously, your view point of my stance is horribly skewed. I had an experience not too different (though less costly), as I refinished an old dresser. The handles were set with an odd spacing for the holes. I had to have them special ordered, and my selection of inventory was very small.
The thing is that there is a common joke in corporate america: "The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from".
As long as you keep your axioms simple and few, then the rest will feel natural. You shouldn't have to have to read 50 pages before you can develop something that can work. It should be natural, and anything outside of that would feel unnatural so you would expect it to not be allowed.
Simple elegance does not mean weak contracts, it means sensible ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
