Ron Schmelzer wrote:
> Who needs an SOA, then?
This was, of course, a silly example of the extreme to indicate that there is a
choice somewhere between. I like more semantics, and lots of typing. I use
Java and Jini which has lots of opportunity to manage versioning. A lot of
people want looser coupling, presumably to manage versioning, put probably also
to provide more expandability of the uses.
I like typing, but believe in using the weakest possible typing that supports
the needed behavior. This, for me, seems to provide the most flexibility.
There are many cases where I've put a "string" value in API. Historically,
I've
got much more benefit from not doing that, and instead using more typing
information. This has made it much easier to amend the usage and behavior of
the API to do more. Why? Because I can use overloading in the API to
designate
more specific behaviors related to other types. The typical OO benefits.
When everything is a string, then any change to that string has to be
compatible
with all uses of the string. If the data has more typing and more semantic
description of its behavior, then I suddenly gain the power of controlling the
impact to other users (which I won't even know of some of them), through normal
OO development such as subclassing, polymorphic overloading etc.
Gregg Wonderly
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
