[erlang-questions] CBSE anybody
Wed Apr 9 22:19:23 CEST 2008
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Joe Armstrong <> wrote:
> Now I cannot conceive of using WSDL to describe protocols - so I think
> some kind of
> CSP'ish notation would suffice. For a transport layer I am uncertain -
> we could use
> Erlang terms (external format) for all messaging (and a type system to
> describe them,) but this
> would hinder interoperability - of the currently available formats
> something like JSON is not
> too bad - or my UBF (see http://www.sics.se/¨~joe/ubf) . Possibly both
> JASON AND UBF.
> The highest level should be a drag and draw gui thingy to describe the
> between components. UML has a notation for this (it has a notation for
> *everything*) which could be cannibalized.
> Does anybody have experience with this kind of way of building
> software - there seems to be a vast
> literature - I search turned up book titles like
> UML Components: A Simple Process for Specifying Component-Based
> Software (Cheesman and Daniels)
A long time ago, I remember using Z.100 SDL for this kind of development (
> What I'm after is
> 1) a graphic notation showing component integration for the top
> level of design.
> 2) A formal notation for describing protocols for the middle level
> 3) A low level way of implementing the protocol
If I remember correctly, SDL + MSC tool we developed in house were just
meeting these requirements.
> I also want a *universal* messaging format for
> interprocess-communication. Any votes for Erlang external term
> format/JSON/UBF/list S expressions
> Which bits should we invent for ourselves - and what should we
> Comments please!
I think that a fresh view to SDL 2007 language could lead to interesting
> /Joe Armstrong
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions