Why ignore the other methods at all, then - why not simply try to help the user by exporting the non-matching signatures as regular doc/lit databound operations? After all, they did say "*".... :)
If I'm the only one with this opinion, I'll certainly step aside. However, I reiterate that this behavior should be crystal clear in the docs. --Glen > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 9:47 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: cvs commit: xml-axis/java/test/MSGDispatch > TestService.java > > > Glen Daniels wrote: > > In the RPC case, if you specify "*", you still shouldn't > have public > > methods in your class which you don't want exported - the failure > > case here is that people can remotely call dangerous/inappropriate > > code. I'm just saying that the same idea should apply for MSG > > services with "*", except that we should notice the non-matching > > methods right away. > > Glen, I must admit that this argument does not make sense to > me. "*" is > dangerous and should be avoided. Period. > > But if somebody ignores this advice, they accept the danger. > > > I think the question comes down to this : which is more > > confusing/difficult to the user? To specify "all methods should be > > exported" and then have deployment silently ignore non-matching > > methods for message services, or to get a deployment failure which > > makes it very clear that you've allowed more than is valid in your > > class signature. To me, it seems like the former is more > opaque and > > error-prone - to you, it seems like the latter is > annoying. Maybe we > > should [VOTE]? > > Again, we are talking about a user is too lazy to list all > the methods > that they want, or to employ the use of a proper tool. What > does this > type of user want? Do they want someone tapping them on the shoulder > and telling them that "um, by they way, did you realize that you have > also exported some methods that you have no way of calling?". > Actually, > I'm not sure that tapping on the shoulder is a good analogy here, as > what actually was occurring was that such users were > summarily dismissed. > > - Sam Ruby >
