[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [COAS-List] Proposed ObservationData IDL

To: charles.carman@philips.com
Subject: Re: [COAS-List] Proposed ObservationData IDL
From: Tim Brinson <TBrinson@mindspring.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:26:02 -0700
CC: dwf@lanl.gov, TBrinson@2ab.com, coas@cs.fiu.edu
Organization: 2ab
References: <0056910001649556000002L162*@MHS>
Reply-To: TBrinson@2ab.com
Sender: owner-coas@cs.fiu.edu

charles.carman@philips.com wrote:

> I am also uncomfortable (along Dave's line of argument) with operations returning ANYs containing structures of ANYs.

As I responded to Dave on this point I would be quite happy for the data type to be used for interoperability being the one currently defined in the COAS spec as long as the operations returned an ANY.  Dave seemed to see some value in this too.

The main point is that returning an ANY does not prevent the service from future improvements in data types (e.g. objects by value) AND it allows local agreements for even tighter data structure interoperability.


Tim

References:
- Re: [COAS-List] Proposed ObservationData IDL
  - From: charles.carman@philips.com

Prev by Date: No Subject
Next by Date: [COAS-List] Re: Today's deadline for draft specification
Prev by thread: Re: [COAS-List] Proposed ObservationData IDL
Next by thread: Re: [COAS-List] Proposed ObservationData IDL
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread