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

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

From: Jim Webber <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:46:27 +0100
Message-ID: <37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA800103DC29@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Paul:

> knowing what will happen and which message you'll receive/ 
> expected to send in reply isn't leaking implementation 
> details into WSDL IMO.

The point is that you never really know what happens at the back end,
which is a good thing from an encapsulation point of view.

> Bad example: business forms include a unique form 
> identification at the
> top: UB40, SP30, or what not. if i send the inland revenue an 
> IRXXX instead of an IRYYY with the same date, customer 
> reference, nation insurance etc i can expect to receive 
> maternity leave rather than sick benefit.

I would expect that if you submitted these two forms to the DHSS:

<form>
  <form-title>Disability Benefit Claim</form-title>
  ...
</form>

<form>
  <form-title>Maternity Benefit Claim</form-title>
  ...
</form>

Even if the structure of those forms is identical, the content will
allow routing to the correct lump of processing at the back end.

Actually given it's the DHSS we're on about you'd probably get two
different sets of behaviour from two identical forms - whether you
advertise the dispatcher or not :-)

Jim
--
http://jim.webber.name  
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2004 04:54:13 GMT

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