MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















emergency message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: RE: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] RE: Content ( was RE: [emergency-comment] RE: [CAP] RE:   CAP-list digest...)




From: "Kon Wilms" <kon.wilms@ndsamericas.com>
To: "R. Allen Wyke" <emergency-tc@earthlink.net>,"'Art Botterell'" <acb@incident.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:11:59 -0800






Couldn't it be argued that an implementation has to at least do 'some work'?
A standard isn't defined by its ability to transparentlycross all protocol,
interface, and transport boundaries. Thats shooting too high, and any such
attempt to tie all these aspects together is doomed to failure.

I see no problem with having to implement connectors. Its just part of the
natural cycle of interfacing to external systems. I don't think anyone on my
team even batted an eyelid when this subject came up -- just implement a
protocol/interface aggregator and expand its connectors as required.

Cheers
Kon