On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 01:42:39PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 03:18:55AM -0400, Rocco Caputo wrote: > > > > > -schemas for interfaces: > > > it would be fine if one could attach assertions, simple checks, ... > > > to interfaces that would make sure the interface is used correctly. > > > most comp.s will talk in proabably easy protocols with each other. > > > > I added some notes yesterday afternoon about this. Interfaces may > > include verifiable version numbers. If one component detects a bad > > version number, it may decide the interface isn't compatible. > > > > Another way to do this is, as you said earlier, to compare interfaces. > > If message signatures do not match method signatures, then there is a > > problem: the components aren't speaking the same language. > > What I tried to say that the interfaces could be a good place to check that > the components stick to the protocol that is associated with an interface. > For example, "initialize" events should be sent before "do_work". However > this is not really needed but just useful to catch misbehaviour.
I have proposed that interfaces be implemented as reusable fragments of components. They can be rolled into composite components, which then expose them as public interfaces. So it seems to me that the component fragment that implements a particular interface should be responsible for ensuring that it's not misused. -- Rocco Caputo / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / poe.perl.org / poe.sf.net
