Re: Heirarchical Names vs GUIDs" INTEGRITY OF I/F in .NET?

[Richard Curzon]

"Bob Carr" <BobC963@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3975b13b$1@news.devx.com...
>
> I've been hearing a lot that COM is out the window, that COM is being
replaced
> by this new .NET architecture, that GUIDs are being replaced by
heirarchical
> names. What does "heirarchical names" mean? How is that different from
GUIDs?
>
>
> Bob Carr
>

Yes, it looks like a directory path, either local or across, although it
basically uses "dot' syntax instead of slashes.

But a GUID was more than in implementation detail. It was a specific
interface contract, a sort of guarantee of stability.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/general/disco.asp

That reference describes the "soap contract language", sounds like the .NET
counterpart.

Is the new world of .NET going to be wild and woolly as it looks?
"DISCOvery" is nice, but I don't want to re"discover" every day that an
object I am using over the net has changed its interface once again.

Nor do I want emails from service providers like "Customers please note,
argument 3 for GetCreditRating will no longer be valid as of July 1. Please
change your code or die and take all your customers with you."

The COM GUID wasn't perfect, but it did recognize and enforce (a bit) the
contract of service of an object. Am I missing something in .NET?

--Richard.

[Richard Curzon]

Okay I see, it's assembly manifests, versions, binding policies,
e.g. http://216.87.1.125/quickstart/howto/

[Eduardo A. Morcillo]

How all this works when you breaking the compatibility of a component? It
all sounds like late binding to me.

--
Eduardo A. Morcillo
http://www.domaindlx.com/e_morcillo
"Richard Curzon" <richardcurzon@home.com> wrote in message
news:397763bb$1@news.devx.com...
>
> "Bob Carr" <BobC963@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3975b13b$1@news.devx.com...
> >
> > I've been hearing a lot that COM is out the window, that COM is being
> replaced
> > by this new .NET architecture, that GUIDs are being replaced by
> heirarchical
> > names. What does "heirarchical names" mean? How is that different from
> GUIDs?
> >
> >
> > Bob Carr
> >
>
> Yes, it looks like a directory path, either local or across, although it
> basically uses "dot' syntax instead of slashes.
>
> But a GUID was more than in implementation detail. It was a specific
> interface contract, a sort of guarantee of stability.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/general/disco.asp
>
> That reference describes the "soap contract language", sounds like the
..NET
> counterpart.
>
> Is the new world of .NET going to be wild and woolly as it looks?
> "DISCOvery" is nice, but I don't want to re"discover" every day that an
> object I am using over the net has changed its interface once again.
>
> Nor do I want emails from service providers like "Customers please note,
> argument 3 for GetCreditRating will no longer be valid as of July 1.
Please
> change your code or die and take all your customers with you."
>
> The COM GUID wasn't perfect, but it did recognize and enforce (a bit) the
> contract of service of an object. Am I missing something in .NET?
>
> --Richard.
>
>