Lists Home |
Date Index |
10/27/2002 7:05:57 AM, Alaric Snell <email@example.com> wrote:
>Hey, there's a point in my position that we don't need harsh seperation
>between data interchange format descriptions and in-memory ones; why do we
>need a seperate notation for each?
Loose coupling, loose coupling, and loose coupling. So that one side can
change internal data structures, implementation languages, platforms,
versions of the application software etc. etc. etc. without everything
> It's just a data structure; you still end
>up declaring that certain things appear inside certain things and all that;
>even if you decide you want different formats internally and externally in a
>given situation, it would be nice to have the raw input data coming in as
>something compatible with what you process internally, for the simple reason
>that your transformation probably doesn't want to rewrite EVERYTHING.
Nice for nerds, sure. How about for user who want to upgrade to new software
without losing the ability to exchange data with others? Improperly done,
standards can produce lock-in to inferior technologies .. in the long run
the network effect the standard produces can seem like a devil's bargain.