RE: Minority objection to requiring unique GEDs or required feature to distinguish operations from paul.downey@bt.com on 2004-08-13 (www-ws-desc@w3.org from August 2004)

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:14:01 +0100
To: <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DB2C@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>

Mark wrote:
> 
>> what about the example where "GuestOperation" and "GoldPayingOperation"
>> both accept the same message, but the response is different after i've
>> phoned the service provider and supplied my credit card number.

> That would be ambiguous since the client wouldn't know which operation
> was used.  It may turn out that this is desirable, but that would just
> be coincidental.  There are architecturally superior (aka non-ambiguous)
> ways to do what you want, such as breaking it up into two services and
> using a single common operation (aka polymorphic dispatch).

it's not ambiguous if the client also knows i've paid my bill ..
- please note i'm trying to represent other people's POV here.

Paul

Received on Friday, 13 August 2004 18:13:52 UTC