The implementation would probably be something like this:
void deleteEmployee(int empid) throws SOAPException
{
try
{
// delete employee here
}
catch (Exception exx)
{
throw new SOAPException(exc);
}
}
From: Rogério Luz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Explicit response required from WS methods?
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:54:09 -0300
Depends on what service.deleteEmployee() method do. If you have a try/catch
there and an Exception is thrown you'll never know if your delete really
happaned. Certainly if line 2 executes, line 1 was executed or at least was
called.
On 8/31/05, Jarmo Doc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK, but is it actually required? If my client executes the following:
>
> 1. service.deleteEmployee(5);
> 2. System.out.println("deleted empid 5");
>
> Is execution of line 2 a guarantee that line 1 succeeded?
>
>
> >From: Rogério Luz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: Explicit response required from WS methods?
> >Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:43:41 -0300
> >
> >I think it would be a good practice return at least a boolean to ensure
> >your
> >deleteEmployee method really deleted an employee.
> >
> >On 8/31/05, Jarmo Doc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Let's say that I have a WS method like so:
> > >
> > > deleteEmployee(int empid) throws SOAPException
> > > {
> > > }
> > >
> > > Is it sensible for this method to have a void return type or should
it
> > > always return something, for example the empid just deleted (for
> client
> > > correlation purposes, amongst other things)?
> > >
> > > I ask because it's not clear to me what's going on under the covers.
I
> > > could imagine, for example, that void would be OK because any kind
of
> > > problem explicitly detected by the web service method would throw a
> > > SOAPException and any kind of network issue (e.g. request not even
> >making
> > > it
> > > to the web service) or a failure of the service to execute the
method
> > > might
> > > cause the underlying infrastructure itself to throw a SOAPException
> > > (because, for example, HTTP 200 OK was never seen by the client). So
> the
> > > absence of a SOAPException might reasonably imply success and hence
no
> > > return type was required.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> > > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >--
> >[]´s
> >
> >Rogério Luz
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>
--
[]´s
Rogério Luz
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
