Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sun 29th May 2011 09:42 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 474974
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by Kaj-de-Vos
by xiaokj on Sun 29th May 2011 21:58
in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Kaj-de-Vos"
Personally, I prefer something lighter too: the HTTP protocol itself is a wonder, and it is much lighter than the tag heavy XML, of course.
However, a specification sheet is a good idea since implementations can, and do, change. Better to code with expectation of change rather than go by "interface memory". If you wanted to have something be as abstract as declarative would allow, then why strap yourself down with black magic? Again, something light would be very nice too. Maybe just a version number is good enough, but still.
Glad that I could actually understand you with just the magic 2 words. It may not be esoteric, but this is proper old school (actually, more like good sense than old).
RE[9]: Comment by Kaj-de-Vos
by Kaj-de-Vos on Sun 29th May 2011 22:11
in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Kaj-de-Vos"





Member since:
2010-06-09
That's pretty good, except:
- It's not esoteric, but widely used. Hence my example of HTML.
- I do not prefer XML. It has become a reflex for people to come up with that immediately, but like RPC, it's an implementation detail. Actually, I think XML is way too heavy.
- Specification sheets (such as DTDs) are not strictly necessary. This is also an implementation detail. A metadata specification is required if all the world needs to know the meaning of the data, but most interfaces are between parties that know each other and don't need to be understood by parties that have no preexisting knowledge of the interface.
- Therefore, there are no inherent drawbacks of difficult implementation. It can be as simple as you make it.