Any List object or any Object is worth than XML because any object pro grammatically couples consumer and service. XML, in the contrast, represents a declarative loose coupling via the XML Scheme.
That is, an exchanging Objects written in any programming languages is not the good practice for SOA Services. This practice is similar to bearded RPC and suitable only for the cases where the same development team/developer controls both consumer and service sides ALWAYS(!) If this is the case, why anybody would need a SO implementation? The definition of type Object in Java is available only starting with jdk 1.5, earlier versions do not have such feature. - Michael Poulin ________________________________ From: Gregg Wonderly <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 11:32:06 PM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: good or bad practice? or maybe ugly In this particular case with Java, the interface can include generic type references on the List to control the types of things sent to it. public int method(List< DataObject> lis) helps software developers know exactly what kind of list should be passed. A List is not any worse than a XML document or a stream of some other structure values. It is important to understand that exporting "DataObject" in the interface definition does create a type base dependency that you have to be ready to manage the life cycle of. Gregg Wonderly jesseezell wrote: > > > Best practice with service interfaces is to pass messages that have been > specifically crafted to contain information about the requested > operation, not lists of objects. Any interface where you are basically > just taking a call that could have been a local method call and exposing > it over the wire may be a web service, but that doesn't mean it's > service oriented. It is often a good idea not even to use objects from > your domain model directly, because you want your service interface to > be stable. > > --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > <mailto:service- orientated- architecture% 40yahoogroups. com>, Sasan > <sasanp...@. ..> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Is it good practice to have a service that exposes a method with a > List of objects as a parameter? Programmatically speaking from Java > programming point of view java.util.List. > > > > Example: > > > > public int method(java. util.List objects) > > > > Even if the interface is documented, I do not see this as a good > practice cause this tells me the method takes a list of basically any > object type. This could be troublesome for clients that discover > services dynamically. > > > > I appreciate all opinions on this. > > > > Thanks, > > Sasan > > > >
