Sounds like to me the basic benefit is the ability to add attributes to your POJO and change the behavior. That's it.
Adding it to the WSDL is yet another real version of the WSDL? Where slipping an impl in with new underlying behavior specified by attributes would have merit I would think. Just me $.02 -----Original Message----- From: Ted Neward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 4:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Endpoints: JAX-WS vs. WCF But you can add that attribute in a variety of ways and get that same goodness; add it to the contract itself in WSDL (WS-Policy), add it to the interface (forcing implementations to recognize and support it, either through AOP or through hand-woven support), or on the class (where it is picked up by a container and given support, a la EJB or Spring). I'm not sure how that changes the interface/implementation discussion. I realize I'm in the minority here, but I'm just curious, aside from the RMI- and CORBA-esque interface-is-contract approach, what benefit does an interface-based implementation really give us in the XML services world? Besides the "we've always done it that way" answer? Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:08 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Endpoints: JAX-WS vs. WCF > > I think the interface/implementation value probably comes more in terms of > aop/testing/mockability/etc. For instance, I can add a @Transactional > attribute to my web service in Spring and get a tranasaction for each > operation. Hooray for magic-spring-annotation-proxy-goodness. > > On 7/10/07, Ted Neward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > That's not *exactly* correct, Dan; a WCF endpoint is created with a > > Contract, which can be specified using a variety of things, including a > C# > > (or VB or C++/CLI or ...) interface with the appropriate custom > attributes > > describing the contract, or it can also be done directly on a class > using > > same said attributes. Most of the time when we demo WCF ("we" being > > "myself > > and the folks I teach with at Pluralsight"), we show the attributes on > > interfaces because that is the model that was most widely discussed and > > promoted for .NET Remoting and ASMX, not because it's the model that > makes > > the most sense. > > > > I'm not suggesting that Microsoft *didn't* get it right here... I'm just > > wondering if it's really all that important to be able to slide a > > different > > implementation behind an interface, when the actual point of coupling is > > not > > the language interface, but the XML messages being sent back and forth. > > > > Anyway, just my $.02 worth. I, for one, am not all that upset at the > idea > > of > > a single concrete class being tied to an endpoint, because I'm not > > convinced > > that the value of the interface-implementation idiom is that critical in > a > > distributed system where the contract isn't given by the interface > itself. > > > > Ted Neward > > Java, .NET, XML Services > > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > > http://www.tedneward.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dan Connelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 11:40 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Endpoints: JAX-WS vs. WCF > > > > > > A JAX-WS Endpoint must be created using a service implementation. > > > > > > A (Microsoft) WCF Endpoint, on the other hand, is created with an SEI > > > (C# interface), not an implementation. This allows multiple impls > of > > > the same service interface to be reached through the WCF Endpoint. > The > > > Dispatcher, which is configured separately, has rules for invoking the > > > desired implementation. > > > > > > It seems to me that Microsoft got it right. Does anyone want to > > > comment on that? > > > > > > Why is there no DispatchingInvoker class in CXF as a convenience when > > > the user needs a Dispatcher? Is there a sample showing the coding > for > > > a dispatching Invoker? > > > > > > -- Dan Connelly > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/891 - Release Date: > 7/8/2007 > > > 6:32 PM > > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/893 - Release Date: 7/9/2007 > > 5:22 PM > > > > > > > > > -- > Dan Diephouse > Envoi Solutions > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/893 - Release Date: 7/9/2007 > 5:22 PM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/896 - Release Date: 7/11/2007 4:09 PM
