Do you create a new ​'Web​Services' or 'WebService' ?

Minh wrote:

MyWebService ... just doesn't sound right... MyWebServices has more ... weight...

Of course calling it My anything makes it VB.Net .... [6]

WebService (singular).  That said, we name our web services with plural names since they act like publicly exposed static classes with multiple methods.  So an example of say a web service that allows you to query users might be...

/Services/Users.asmx

HumanCompiler wrote:

WebService (singular).  That said, we name our web services with plural names since they act like publicly exposed static classes with multiple methods.

Stop that. STOP THAT RIGHT NOW.

Stop that illusion that it's a class; it's such a horrible horrible falsehood.

blowdart wrote:



HumanCompiler wrote: WebService (singular).  That said, we name our web services with plural names since they act like publicly exposed static classes with multiple methods.

Stop that. STOP THAT RIGHT NOW.

Stop that illusion that it's a class; it's such a horrible horrible falsehood.

Falsehood? 

Dude, what's up?  Explain.  Can't I think of it however I want?    You can't accuse someone of being wrong without explaining why you think they're wrong.

HumanCompiler wrote:


Dude, what's up?  Explain.  Can't I think of it however I want?    You can't accuse someone of being wrong without explaining why you think they're wrong.

The problem with the image of it being a class is how people then expect it to work like one and that completly messes with the SOA principles. You should be thinking in terms of messages, not an object with its expectations of statefulness and persistance.

blowdart wrote:



HumanCompiler wrote:  Dude, what's up?  Explain.  Can't I think of it however I want?    You can't accuse someone of being wrong without explaining why you think they're wrong.

The problem with the image of it being a class is how people then expect it to work like one and that completly messes with the SOA principles. You should be thinking in terms of messages, not an object with its expectations of statefulness and persistance.

Um, I said "static" class.  Where's the state in that?  It's just a container that exposes methods (in either case).

HumanCompiler wrote:



Um, I said "static" class.  Where's the state in that?  It's just a container that exposes methods (in either case).

Oh I know you did, but you'll find a lot of people don't make that distinction. You give them a class that has, for example "set_price" and they believe it suddenly acts like a remoted object, where there's an actual class on the other end that stays allocated, holding price in a field somewhere.

It's a horrible mess to teach people about because they say class and their mind gets it wrong, especially when you want to start talking contract first.

ubercoder wrote:



blowdart wrote:  The problem with the image of it being a class is how people then expect it to work like one and that completly messes with the SOA principles. You should be thinking in terms of messages, not an object with its expectations of statefulness and persistance.

I agree.

If you think Web services like classes or even worse objects then you are in trouble at the implementation level.

I learn about it the wrong way.

I'm not exactly sure what horrible implementations you're talking about, but I haven't had any troubles.  Explain what troubles you've had and how you learned the wrong way.

blowdart wrote:



HumanCompiler wrote:  Um, I said "static" class.  Where's the state in that?  It's just a container that exposes methods (in either case).

Oh I know you did, but you'll find a lot of people don't make that distinction. You give them a class that has, for example "set_price" and they believe it suddenly acts like a remoted object, where there's an actual class on the other end that stays allocated, holding price in a field somewhere.

It's a horrible mess to teach people about because they say class and their mind gets it wrong, especially when you want to start talking contract first.

I hear you, but I don't really see that many newbies here.  Niners seem to know what they're doing. 

IMHO, I view web services closer to UI than I do anything else.  Do you write code in your web services?  I don't (other than maybe a little authentication stuff).  They just act as a wrapper around our services.  So while there may not be an actual UI to them they still are how one client can interact with another (so the idea is similar).  Seems like how a static class works to me, just that the contract between the caller and the "server" is different.

JohnAskew wrote:



Teachers can never assume that the fundamentals are understood.

Well to refer myself as a teacher would be stretching it; although mentoring is part of my role