Talk:Interface description language
Isn't it calling conventions instead of call semantics? Wouter Lievens 08:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Is the IDL for an RPC mechanism the typically text-based language used to describe the abstract syntax for procedure calls (such as ONC RPC's rpcgen, DCE/RPC's IDL, etc.), or is it the over-the-wire transfer syntax used for sending calls, arguments, replies, and return values over the wire (such as ONC RPC's XDR, DCE/RPC's NDR, XML-RPC's use of XML, etc.)? Guy Harris 08:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Interface Definition Language is something different ... ?
The article stars
"interface description language (or interface definition language)"
I believe that interface description langauge is the definitively only correct phrase.
OMG defined a language called "interface definition language" also abreviated to IDL. This language is a concrete interface description language.
I know that a lot of places on the internet, it says that IDL (not the specific one) is an acronym for interface definition language, and sometimes (like now on Wikipedia) it says that it is an acronym for both "~ description ~" and "~ definition ~", but I think this is because people have read about OMG's IDL without knowing that it was different from the term IDL, and then passed this misunderstanding on.
I think that the parenthesis should simply be deleted, and possibly replaced by a line saying that "interface description language often used interchangeably with interface definition language, but the latter is a specific interface description language defined by OMG" or something like that.
The problem is that I am not really sure about this!!!
What do you think?
--Velle 19:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Interface Description Lanugage and Interface based programming is completly different!!
The first is a way to describe an interface in a neutral way.
The second is a programming paradigm. It is widly used in Spring (you don't know which implementation you are getting, but you can be certain that this object supports a specified set of methods)
Merge the lot under "Interfaces"
Would it be to larger subject to merge the lot under "Interfaces". In one location the purpose of interfaces could be discussed, followed by various related techniques and technologies.
Also, I have a book that refers to Interface Definition Language. Just because an individual has only heard of one phrase to discribe something does not mean other people are not using different phrases for the same meaning. An encyclopaedia needs to cover all phrases used to discuss a subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPThompson (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)