Re: A working document

On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Cezary Zielinski wrote:

[...]
> > Is there any difference with the data structure part of the
> > component's interface? To me, both look the same: they present a view
> > to the `outside world' on the internals of a component.
> >
>
> The definition of component within the OROCOS Glossary does not specify how
> it is implemented, thus there is some ambiguity. If we treat a component as
> something more or less equivalent to a class, then you are right - the data
> structure part of the component's interface will suffice and there is no
> need for the introduction of new names. However, if we treat as a component
> a whole process, a component (a process) has to communicate to other
> components (processes) its internal state (its image) and that has to be
> organised as a certain data transfer (export/import). In that case I like to
> use the term "image". The image is being transferred.
>
Why use another term when the whole computer science world uses
``interface'' as the term to represent the view that a component/class
offers to the outside world? ``Interface'' can be used with both
components and classes; it covers both data encapsulation as
``methods''.

Herman

Herman