From: Jamis Buck <jgb3@...>
Date: 2004-11-12T03:07:14+09:00
Subject: Re: Thinking About Java Interfaces In Ruby

Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:19:28 +0900, James Edward Gray II
> <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
> 
>>You don't really just say, "Pass in an object that responds to X,
>>Y, and Z." in the RDoc, do you?
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed, I do. If I want something that responds to #<<, I'll
> say that. 
> 
> The only reason I really see for having interface hinting is
> automatic cross-language interface discovery (e.g., SOAP, CORBA,
> etc.). This way, you can simply say "this class is available for
> SOAP manipulation" and SOAP can discover what it expects.
> 
> I haven't missed interfaces in the way that they are required for
> less dynamic languages.
> 
> -austin

I'm completely with Austin on this. I do the same thing: "this method 
requires a method that responds to #foo". It has served me well enough.

The *only* time I've thought interfaces would be nice is when I 
considered finding a way to implement type 1 inversion of control. This 
is where a service just says "I need another service that implements 
this interface" and the container goes and finds one that matches.

Even then, I was only thinking it would be neat to implement for the 
"gee-whiz" value, not because I actually needed that feature.

-- 
Jamis Buck
jgb3@email.byu.edu
http://www.jamisbuck.org/jamis