- From: Hao He <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:48:08 +1100
- To: "'Christian Hoertnagl'" <hoe@zurich.ibm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
- Message-ID: <686B9E7C8AA57A45AE8DDCC5A81596AB046AE259@sydthqems01.INT.TISA.COM.AU>
The central problem here is the level of granularity. IMO, RPC is more suitable for fine grained processing while Document-Centric Approach (DCA) is more suitable for coarse grained processing. Yes, you can use either approach to do both but the cost would be higher than necessary. With a RPC approach, by its nature of tight coupling, it makes sense to do early bindings, things such as stub generation with strong typing. By contrast, you want to do late bindings with DCA. A typical design pattern here is layering, with each layer being specialized in solving one particular problem. Hao -----Original Message----- From: Christian Hoertnagl [mailto:hoe@zurich.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:02 PM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: programming model for document-style SOAP Anne, Hao, I agree with Anne's reply indicating that the choice between RPC or document-style does not mandate a particular client programming style. The WSDL spec e.g. specifically says that "This information _may_ be used to select an appropriate programming model". However, while I understand that you can do document-style messaging using normal stubs, I'm also interested in scenarios where the messages have more variable format (an unknown number of documents, each with optional attachment, say) than is typical for RPC (three integer parameters, say). For handling sg. like this an approach with callback handlers (like Hao seems to indicate as well) seems like an attractive option to me. I'd be curious to learn more about existing approaches esp. of this kind. Regards, Christian Hao He <Hao.He@thomson.com.au> wrote on 01/09/2003 01:55:14 AM: > We are using a strategy pattern in our implementation: you have a generic > reader which decomposes the document to various parts that can be handled by > various handlers. Perhaps this is similar to your handler as well? The > cool thing about this approach is that each handler only needs to under one > aspect of the document.
Attachments
- text/plain attachment: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 18:47:02 UTC