I agree You'd be surprised however how often I do see people try and do just that with objects. On one notable occasion it became the single biggest issue for the company because of the tight coupling between 3 core systems based around their (Java) classes.
Steve 2008/10/24 Hitoshi Ozawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Locally in a structured manner. > > Trying to define all services at an enterprise level is like saying that all > objects in OO should be defined at an enterprise level so they can be > shared/reused. : ) > > H.Ozawa > > 2008/10/24 Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Extending it locally or globally? >> >> Steve >> >> 2008/10/24 htshozawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Sorry for the late reply. Been working of a new proposal. >> > >> > I think this is where the modeling and governance comes in. >> > I agree with the "minimal canonical form" concept and I think there >> > should be a common methodology on "extending" it. I'm using >> > namespaces to overlayer XML Schema definitions. >> > >> > H.Ozawa >> > >> > --- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Now the first bit I agree with (service defining a specific >> > interface >> >> that people must use) the second (that interface should be >> >> standardised at the enterprise level) I disagree with. >> >> >> >> Take "Customer", if I am sending an order to a customer I need to >> > know >> >> >> >> 1) Name >> >> 2) Address >> >> 3) What I'm shipping >> >> >> >> So the "Shipping" Service needs to have just that, it doesn't need >> > the >> >> enterprise canonical form of customer that also includes >> >> >> >> Last contact >> >> Buyer history >> >> Credit History >> >> Credit Rating >> >> Mother's Maiden name >> >> Pet name >> >> Sales contact >> >> Phone number >> >> etc >> >> etc >> >> etc >> >> >> >> This is why I don't advise enterprise canonical models except to say >> >> that "minimal canonical form" is a good idea. >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> > >> > > >
