Thanks for clarifying, Steve. I had trouble with your previous message, but this is clearer ...
On 3/1/06, Steve Ross-Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Having a generic operation is less useful so you can go to high and yet > having operations > that are too specific is going to far the other way as they may change > too much. So a happy medium > is needed. At least we agree about the problems with getting too specific. 8-) > The benefit of having more distinct operations is really about > capturing meaning and making > the architecture cleaner and clearer - so transparency is a key. A > "doit" operation does not help > but having "doA" followed by "doB" makes in clear that A preceeds B. > Having "doit" and "doit" > does not make it clear at all so we can see that it does not help with > understanding or > clarity. It's just as clear IMO, it's just a different approach involving two services instead of one. A client would start by first invoking doIt on service A, which could then be followed by a "doIt" invocation on service B. The way that the ordering can be made explicit is that the response from the service A invocation contains information which identifies service B. Cheers, 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/
