Re: [COMPONENTS] Gnome's OAF allows `Capability-based activation'...

On Sunday 09 September 2001 22:36, you wrote:
> I also tried to come up with a description of "component" on the
> glossary page <http://www.orocos.org/glossary.html>. Please comment on
> this trial:
>
> ``A unit of composition with clearly specified interfaces and
> functionality. It can depend on context, but this dependence is made
> explicit. A software component is an independent unit, consisting of
> different modules, should be reusable, exceeding the concept of
> ``small'' entities such as classes, be able to interrogate other
> components to find their interfaces (and be interroated itself), be
> able to generate and handle events, and deliverable by third parties
> on the basis of its interface specification only.''

I agree with this definition, that is, I find it in agreement with other 
definitions of  ``components" I encountered.  
What might be a bit strange is that you define a component as something 
"independent" (from what ?) but you still state that a component can depend 
on the context, under strict conditions.  
I have found another definition ( 
http://www.dis.uu.se/~zeykiz/Papers/CBSEreport.pdf ) which is more elaborated 
and that paper also discusses other interesting definitions like 'framework', 
'interface', 'patterns',... and the relation between them.

It's probably nothing new for the experts, but being a green myself, I found 
it interesting :-)

>
> One of the important things is this "interrogateability", I think...

absolutely, I believe you mean the plug-and-play opportunities of 
"interrogatebility"

Peter