🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6597@dove.nist.gov>, 
kuhn@swe.ncsl.nist.gov (Rick &) writes:

|> We are getting a lot closer to having a complete set of standard
|> interfaces for system services, communications, security, etc.  

And X-windows has provided us with one for user-interfaces and SQL
provides one for (relational) data base access.  Both are based on
some particular abstraction of the service they intend to provide.

Are there any generalizations we can make (with any degree of 
assurance) about what constitutes a "good" standard interface?
Or a bad one?



|> :Jeff: My followup question is, 
|> :Jeff: "What characteristics of interfaces enable reuse?  
|> :Jeff: -or-
|> :Jeff: How do we design interfaces to enable their 
|> :Jeff: implementing software to be easily reused?
|> 
|> These are major research questions, of course, but one problem with
|> such interfaces today is lack of rigorous definition of the services
|> provided.  ...  Formal descriptions would be even better.

Who is proposing formal systems for such descriptions?  How can I
get in touch with them?  How do we get them involved in this thread?
How do we get copies of their proposals posted here so we can read 
them?

-- 
	   _   _
    /_    / ) / ) Jeff Hull           jhull@thor.den.mmc.com
   //_) -/- -/-   1544 S. Vaughn Cir  
/_/ \_/ /   /	  Aurora, CO 80012    303-977-1061

No matter where you go ... there you are.
#include <standard.disclaimer.h>