My mistake. I misread the note. I thought we were talking about static
accessors on beans (looking back on the notes I can't imagine where I got
that notion).
As for static methods on the real object, as long as they don't have any
state then that's fine, but proper programming style isn't something we can
enforce anyway. All we have to do is hide the skeleton methods.
Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 09/27/2002 03:22:54 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: (Attn:Tom and others) EsrTest
Hm, I don't think so, since I would have -1'ed such a decision if I'd
noticed it.
As a Java developer, I often put functionality which doesn't require any
state into static methods. Why shouldn't I be able to use those methods as
web services?
We should also be able to call static methods without needing any object
instantiation.
--Glen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Butek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 11:13 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: (Attn:Tom and others) EsrTest
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I thought we had agreed at one point that static methods SHOULD be
> excluded. They're certainly not part of traditional beans.
>
> Russell Butek
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 09/26/2002 05:10:39 PM
>
> Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
> Subject: RE: (Attn:Tom and others) EsrTest
>
>
>
>
> > By the way shouldn't static methods be excluded during ?WSDL
> > processing.
>
> No, static methods are OK to export if desired.
>
> --G
>
>
