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

[Len Gallagher <LGallagher@nist.gov>(by way of Len Gallagher <LGallagher@nist.gov>)]

All,

Michael and Joel are not alone. This point has been made before:

  http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-regrep/200102/msg00021.html

But, realistically, it's too late to make changes of this magnitude in
Phase I of RIM. The topic is already on the issues list for Phase 2, and
I'll be one of those pushing for RIM to become more implementation neutral
in its Phase 2 incarnation.

But secondly, it doesn't really make any difference, because one doesn't
claim conformance to RIM interfaces. Instead, one claims conformance to
Registry Services interfaces, and they're all specified as XML messages.

-- Len


At 03:44 PM 4/6/01 , you wrote:
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
>"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-regrep-request@lists.ebxml.org

**************************************************************
Len Gallagher                             LGallagher@nist.gov
NIST                                      Work: 301-975-3251
Bldg 820  Room 562                        Home: 301-424-1928
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970 USA           Fax: 301-948-6213
**************************************************************