>That doesn't make any sense IMO .. the reason we use the anon ops is to >make the simple case possible. If someone's getting at the operation >client and doing stuff there better know the name of the operation. > > Yes , I understand that. But the scenario I am talking about also making the simple case simple. I mean if we can give a simple way to create an operation client why shouldn't we do that. So if some one just want to create operationClient to invoke a service shy should we ask that guy to ; - first create AxisService with all the AxisOperation - and then create ServiceClient using that - then use that service client to create operationClient
I really like to have the following steps to create operation client - create ServiceClient using its default constructor - Then create operation client >I don't understand what you're saying- if the user is creating a service >client with an AxisService they should know the names. If not, the >existence of AxisService is hidden - they just say new ServiceClient() >and just call the various call method shortcuts. Having the anon name >exposed in inconsistent with that design. > Yes , if user create ServiceClient using his AxisService then he can not use those constants to create OperationClient , then he need to use his operation names. And that is the technique we are using inside stubs. -Deepal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
