I've been looking at how the Operation class works and have been
considering refactoring it since it has some memory leaks and should use
STL templates, and I came to the realization that its duplicating a lot
of what SDO does. The Operation class seems to serve 2 purposes:
- Store the Operation Name
- Store the Operation Parameters
All of the Operation setReturnValue(), addParameter(), and
getParameter() methods are duplicating what an SDO DataObject does, so
why not just use an SDO? The method signatures that use the Operation
class can be changed to take a std::string for the operationName and to
take a DataObjectPtr for the parameters. The DataObjectPtr can contain a
DataObjectPtr child for each WSDL message part. Additionally, I suggest
adding a 3rd argument, which would be the output message, so the
resulting ServiceWrapper::invoke() signature would look like this:
void ServiceWrapper::invoke( const std::string &operationName,
DataObjectPtr input, DataObjectPtr output );
If we take this approach, the affected areas will be the samples
(anywhere a ServiceWrapper is used) and scagen.
Any opinions?
--------------------
Brady Johnson
Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
