W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

RE: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:07:10 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DA55@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Prasad wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> > You're right here, sort of. The first time something breaks you've got a
>> head start because you immediately know what operation is causing the
>> problem. However over time as your service evolves and perhaps the
>> wsdl:operation and the com.foo.Bar.operation() method become more
>> detached (perhaps completely) 
>
> If this really the way you design and maintain things, you are right it does 
> not matter if you had operations or not. Glad I don't buy software from you :)

AIUI Jim's describing a facade pattern. it's legitimate in my book for the underlying 
implementation to change under the published interface, but what this has to do 
with the "whichOperation" issue escapes me.
 
Paul  
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2004 16:07:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT