- From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
- Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:19:43 -0500
- To: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Secondly, simply telling the resource that the light is on is not > equivalent to actually switching the switch! That's true. If you're interested in the state of the switch and not the light, then you want a switch resource, not a light resource. But in the familiar case, the state of the light is what the client cares about, and the switch is...implementation detail. This raises an important point. In most applications I have experienced and most I can conceive of, clients understand the problem domain in terms of the state of domain objects. They don't want to toggle the switch, they want the light on. They don't care what starting state it was in. This is too prevalent to dismiss. Things which are operation-centric and state-agnostic tend to be games, not businesses. Picture a child flipping the switch merely for the sake of changing its state. Clearly, the more goal-oriented the endeavor, the better state-transfer fits. Walden
Received on Saturday, 22 February 2003 20:20:11 UTC