RE: Do the RIM interfaces have to look like a Java API?

["Munter, Joel D" <joel.d.munter@intel.com>]

To Reg/Rep Team and Michael.

I find it interesting that no public comment was ever offered on this list
regarding Michael's comments and questions.  I agree with him, the
specification editors should make all attempts to be language neutral. If
implementations are rendered impossible or very difficult due to any
language specific issues, adoption of standards (and that is what this
is...) will be much slower than hoped for.

Joel

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Joya [mailto:mike.joya@xmlglobal.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:58 PM
To: ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Do the RIM interfaces have to look like a Java API?


  The interfaces outlined in the RIM look a lot like a contract between
the registry and an application. They do not look like the contract
between two parties in a business transaction. Has this been overlooked?
It looks like it is way outside the scope of this project to define
these interfaces.

  The same could be said about the "Registry" interface from the
services specification. Who is the user of that interface? It certainly
isn't another business; it's more likely a local application that needs
a local handle to a local object. It should be possible to implement a
registry server that can service a client without adopting these
particular object and function names. I have a lot of sympathy for
developers who are trying to write a registry using any language other
than Java.

  That said, the relationships and associations between the objects do
provide a fundamental model and seem worthwhile to specify.

  Does anyone else agree that these interfaces are in the wrong place?
It looks like they belong in a Sun document and not an ebXML document.



--
// Michael Joya
// XML Global Research and Development
// 1818 Cornwall Ave. Suite 9
// Vancouver, Canada
// 604-717-1100x230