IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: URC formats vs interfaces

"Ronald E. Daniel" <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov> Fri, 06 October 1995 00:20 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21676; 5 Oct 95 20:20 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21672; 5 Oct 95 20:20 EDT
Received: from services.Bunyip.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23659; 5 Oct 95 20:20 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id MAA16392 for uri-out; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 12:36:39 -0400
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA16385 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 12:36:37 -0400
Received: from acl.lanl.gov by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA03495 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com); Thu, 5 Oct 95 12:36:35 -0400
Received: from whatthe.acl.lanl.gov (whatthe.acl.lanl.gov [128.165.148.97]) by acl.lanl.gov (8.6.11/8.6.10) with ESMTP id KAA00522; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:36:32 -0600
Received: (rdaniel@localhost) by whatthe.acl.lanl.gov (8.6.11/8.6.4) id KAA02662; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:36:31 -0600
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Ronald E. Daniel" <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
Message-Id: <9510051036.ZM2660@whatthe.acl.lanl.gov>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 10:36:31 -0600
In-Reply-To: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte) "URC formats vs interfaces" (Oct 5, 10:49am)
References: <95Oct4.134325pdt.2763@golden.parc.xerox.com> <masinter@parc.xerox.com> <9510041552.ZM971@whatthe.acl.lanl.gov> <9510051549.AA11840@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 06sep94)
To: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, "Ronald E. Daniel" <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: URC formats vs interfaces
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Orig-Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk

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"

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email