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: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:29:20 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DA57@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> You also ask how is this different from encapsulating fields in Java? It
> doesn't unless you let the information on the back-end class that
> processes these message exchanges "leak" into the WSDL contract. That's
> my worry (and it may be a best practice worry more than anything) that
> you don't let the details of your implementation pollute your WSDL
> contract.

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

> Business forms and messages are designed in a way to make them 
> unique anyway. I tend to put things like date, customer reference, 
> national insurance number, etc in forms for this reason.

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.


Received on Thursday, 15 July 2004 03:34:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:43 UTC