|
From: Doug T. <dt...@nr...> - 2006-11-17 16:27:08
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, John Taylor wrote: > I guess we're always going to have a tension between a language tuned to a > particular tool and able to expose its full power, and something more > general. Probably the key distinction is an interface which simply allows one to "drag and drop" a structured data object onto a tool, and an API used to interactively control or drive a particular tool. Both have their place. PLASTIC seems to be mainly of the "drag and drop" variety. >> When a language becomes rich >> enough one would probably prefer to register the namespace or schema >> for the language, not the individual elements of the language itself. >> > Interesting. I wonder whether it's feasible for us to aim at rich languages > rather than very simple operations, given the cross-organisation nature of > the endeavour. Perhaps I'm being unambitious. Another way to think of it is, if a component exposes an API, we generally want to register a WSDL or some such specification for the API, rather than the individual elements of the API. Perhaps PLASTIC is not a general messaging system at all, capable of exposing stateful APIs or passing general events, but rather a type of object-oriented drag-and-drop mechanism? Is it mostly used to "push" data objects at tools? - Doug |
