>>
Hope this help :-) << it does, but i'm just not getting that dried
mud embarrassment feeling yet :-)
>>In contrast, if I tell you that I have an abstract interface named
"imop:foo.com/IService", the name is associated with a globally unique
definition<<
Is this global, rather than "types per service" angle the key then?
So from you example "imop:twitter.com/public.Timeline" -the big
winner wouldn't necessarily be twitter directly -but rather would-be-
twitter.com's ability to not only implement imop:twitter.com/
public.Timeline but to declare their implementation formally (rather
than just say "we implement a twitter like api, no really" somewhere
on their site)
Does it follow that you *must* then do the dynamic binding, rather
than the latter being a good thing of itself?
In your example
>>
// pseudo code
ref = imop:bar.com/MyObject;
if ( ref instanceof imop:foo.com/IService )
assign_ref_to_obj();
else
throw_runtime_exception();
<<
does
instanceof imop:foo.com/IService
imply a round trip to the remote node (!!) -or are you already
sitting on a cache of type information (as you would be having
consumed some wsdl)
I *thought* that this was what Reinier Zwitserloot's was asking above,
but that question may have been about caching code (which is certainly
how you answered it)
Can't say I would want to pitch this stuff to Gilad Bracha ;-)
Pete F
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
