axis-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "graham glass" <gra...@themindelectric.com>
Subject RE: ? on WSDL spec
Date Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:46:33 GMT
i think there will be a big developer backlash if overloading is
not supported via WSDL. as a consequence, most web service platform
vendors will try to figure out a way to support it in some way. so
i think it would be better to support it officially rather than try
to suppress it.

my 0.02

cheers,
graham

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Neward [mailto:TedN@matmail.ucdavis.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 2:48 PM
To: 'axis-user@xml.apache.org'
Subject: RE: ? on WSDL spec


I'm not sure that statement

To many people, OO programming includes Polymorphism, and function
overloading is certainly a form of Polymorphism. :)

holds, to be honest. Polymorphism, IIRC, to use the term strictly, is the
ability to substitute multiple types (that is, a type is polymorphic if it
can be used in more than one environment/context). Within Java (and C++, and
C#, and a number of other related languages), this polymorphic behavior
comes through inheritance. We can certainly envision a world of inheritance
without functional overloading by name, no?

However, despite the intrinsic fun in getting into philosophical debates
about this stuff, this all gets WILDLY off-topic to the subject at
hand--WSDL 1.1 allows(?) for overloading, WSDL 1.2 disallows(?) it, even if
the various vendors offer it as a value-add feature(?). Correct?

Ted Neward
Architect, UCDavis Account & Financial Services
http://www.javageeks.com
http://www.clrgeeks.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse D. Sightler [mailto:jsightler@eximtechnologies.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 08:58
To: axis-user@xml.apache.org
Subject: RE: ? on WSDL spec


To many people, OO programming includes Polymorphism, and function
overloading is certainly a form of Polymorphism. :)

I totally agree that this move for "simplicity" by removing a common
programmming practice (which is especially popular in OO designs) is a
bad idea.

The spec is way to complicated to be removing simple, well-understood,
useful things like this. ;)

--
=======================================
Jess Sightler
Programmer
Exim Technologies
131 Falls Street
Greenville SC 29601
Phone: 864-679-4651
=======================================



On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 10:58, J Hodrien wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 butek@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> > Overloading is bad??!?  You ain't much of an OO fan, are you Tom?
>
> I don't see what OO programming and function overloading have in common.
> They're two different techniques.
>
> Having inheritence and classes that override methods with their own more
> specific forms is totally different from:
>
> void get(int);
> void get(char);
>
> There is no need for overloading at all (nor OO not that's appreciated
> enough these days).
>
> jh
>
> --
> "However efficiently artificial light annihilates the difference between
night
>  and day, it never wholly eliminates the primitive suspicion that night
people
>  are up to no good."
>                                                      -- Alfred Alvarez




Mime
View raw message