Joerg Barfurth wrote:
No. One of the things you don't get is optional interfaces. I have to
admit that these are documentation only, but there is no place else to
put this documentation.
That's not true. Documentation also contains text, not only IDL syntax.
There's nothing that prevents
Hi Mathias,
(2) interfaces forgotten in a service description in the first place
that have been added later on. Strictly spoken this is an ugly hack as
the type is changed incompatibly and it just didn't create problems
because it is documentation only and no code or type information was
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
Thus, I would even vote for relaxing the compatibility restrictions:
Heck, please allow me to add new interfaces/properties/attributes to
existing services/interfaces while they grow. Don't let us stay with a
5-year-old design just because in a
Hi Stephan,
I know, I know.
Thinking once again about it, a cheap peace offering
uh, sorry for the rant then - it wasn't intended as declaration of war :)
could be the
introduction of an extensible keyword for interfaces and the concept
of interface ownership:
- You must not
Hi Mathias,
I would like to come back to the question: do we still need old style
services except for backward compatibility?
If I say:
We don't need them. The only useful purpose they can serve is some
flexibility in service design that is desirable for *some* kinds of
service. Thus we
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
Hi Mathias,
(2) interfaces forgotten in a service description in the first place
that have been added later on. Strictly spoken this is an ugly hack as
the type is changed incompatibly and it just didn't create problems
because it is
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
Hi Stephan,
I know, I know.
Thinking once again about it, a cheap peace offering
uh, sorry for the rant then - it wasn't intended as declaration of war :)
No problem. I did not really interpret it as such, either.
could be the
Hi Stephan,
- The owner of an extensible interface can add members to its end
(inherited interfaces, methods, attributes).
Why at the end only? Do we gain something with this restriction, and do
we gain it in *all* language bindings, or would some bindings break
regardless of it?
The C++
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
Hi Stephan,
- The owner of an extensible interface can add members to its end
(inherited interfaces, methods, attributes).
Why at the end only? Do we gain something with this restriction, and do
we gain it in *all* language bindings, or would
