Hi Todd,
Good to see your thinking on this .. thanks for sharing.
> With all that said, this implementation forces the developer to change the
way he or she > invokes the remote service. Instead of service.method(arg1[,
arg2] ...), they need
> service.invoke("method", arg1[, arg2] ...); What do you think about this
limitation?
Actually, you've just reminded me what it was about the FAST implementation
that I didn't like; and that's the idea of the passing of the method name
and arguments to the invoke() method strategy.
I don't like the idea of compile-time checking becoming run-time failures;
ie if "method" does not exist, this will be caught at run-time not
compile-time. Similarly, passing arguments as you do, we lose compile-time
type-checking on the argument list. Again, this is a sacrifice that makes
me think "there has to be a better implementation".
21:30 on a Friday evening is not the time to think about this; ask me on
Monday :)
What do you think -- you share my concerns ?
Best,
Steven
--
Steven Webster
Technical Director
iteration::two
This e-mail and any associated attachments transmitted with it may contain
confidential information and must not be copied, or disclosed, or used by
anyone other than the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended
recipient(s) please destroy this e-mail, and any copies of it, immediately.
Please also note that while software systems have been used to try to ensure
that this e-mail has been swept for viruses, iteration::two do not accept
responsibility for any damage or loss caused in respect of any viruses
transmitted by the e-mail. Please ensure your own checks are carried out
before any attachments are opened.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
