Re: Reference requirements

"Liu, Kevin" wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> [KL] State management and stateful objects are two different things. All
> applications need to manage state somehow, stateful object is only one way
> to do that. Even in a 'classic' n-tier application, many people consider
> stateful object as not scalable.

You'll have to explain the difference to me. Remember that we are
talking about a network interface, not an implementation strategy. There
are no "objects". There are only resources in the Web sense or endpoints
in the SOAP sense.

> In your example, Do you mean you want to keep your stateful object alive for
> a week?

I may not in my implementation keep an object alive for a week. But yes,
I want a logical object to be accessible to the client for a week. The
only way that can happen is if I give them a reference to the object.
Maybe the reference is implicit, like a UUID.

>...
> [KL] Again, referencing an object and passing an object by reference, in my
> opinion a two different thing. In the WSDL interface term, passing by
> reference is more relevant.

If you pass a reference as a parameter is that not the same as passing
"by reference?"

> > 3. As for WSDL, it already has some construct for expressing in/out
> > parameters using ParameterOrder attribute of Operation - any needs to go
> > further?
> 
> That's an unrelated feature.
> [KL] Can you explain?

Perhaps you can. What do in/out parameters have to do with passing by
reference? Yes, in/out parameters are "like" passing by reference in
some programming languages but we're talking about networking here.
Passing by reference is not a hack to get around some programming
language's limitations on returning references.

 Paul Prescod

Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 18:32:04 UTC