Todd, On 2/27/06, Todd Biske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally, I disagree with this comment. The extent to which > general vs. specific is a measurement of a well-defined interface is > dependent on whether or not the service is general purpose or for a > specific purpose.
I don't think so. Whether your interface is submitPizzaOrder, submitOrder, submit, submitPepperoniPizzaOrder, or submitPepperoniAndAnchovyPizzaOrder, you can use any of those to order an anchovy and pepperoni pizza. What you can't do though, is order a snake, crocodile, and kangaroo pizza (yes, I've had one 8-) with submitPepperoniAndAnchovyPizzaOrder. Do you disagree? What some of us are saying is that the more generic the interface, the better separated are the concerns of implementation and interface, and therefore the more loosely coupled the relationship between clients and services; that in the above set of options "submit" is the "best" option in this regard because it makes the least number of assumptions about the implementation. I think we're all aware of the benefits of loose coupling. > As things change, so must the service > interfaces. Respectfully, I think that's entirely counter to the objectives of SOA and large scale systems in general. The separation of interface and implementation is paramount. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca 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/
