On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 11:59 +0530, Deepal Jayasinghe wrote: > >That doesn't make any sense IMO .. the reason we use the anon ops is to > >make the simple case possible. If someone's getting at the operation > >client and doing stuff there better know the name of the operation. > > > > > Yes , I understand that. But the scenario I am talking about also making > the simple case simple. I mean if we can give a simple way to create an > operation client why shouldn't we do that. So if some one just want to > create operationClient to invoke a service shy should we ask that guy to ; > - first create AxisService with all the AxisOperation > - and then create ServiceClient using that > - then use that service client to create operationClient > > I really like to have the following steps to create operation client > - create ServiceClient using its default constructor > - Then create operation client
If you want to do that then you have to support a model of allowing the user to get an anonymous operation client without having to give that a special name that we came up with. That is, it doesn't make sense to make the ANON_* stuff part of user's world- just allow then for the user to pass null as the name and assume that means ANON_whatever (the corresponding anonymous operation). That way you make the simple case simple without introducing new knowledge the user must learn. Is there really a meaningful usecase for someone to create an operation client yet not have a real service (via WSDL or an AxisService)? Sanjiva. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
