Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > ASP .Net > ASP .Net Web Services > WS- I Basic Profile - Clarification

Reply
Thread Tools

WS- I Basic Profile - Clarification

 
 
Rasheed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2006
Please forgive my ignorance as I’m new to SOA related interoperability
issues. The requirement is to build interoperable web services which should
conform to WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 (This requirement came little late in the
development life cycle)

The current web service implementation heavily uses Data Transfer Objects
(DTO) as parameters to web service (The DTO itself contains primitive data
types) . In few places .NET generics are used as well.
Having said,

Do we conform to WS-I BP? Or To what degree we conform to WS-I BP?
If not, what would it take to make is WS-I conformance?

Kindly advice.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Saunders
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2006
"Rasheed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Please forgive my ignorance as I'm new to SOA related interoperability
> issues. The requirement is to build interoperable web services which
> should
> conform to WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 (This requirement came little late in
> the
> development life cycle)
>
> The current web service implementation heavily uses Data Transfer Objects
> (DTO) as parameters to web service (The DTO itself contains primitive data
> types) . In few places .NET generics are used as well.
> Having said,
>
> Do we conform to WS-I BP? Or To what degree we conform to WS-I BP?
> If not, what would it take to make is WS-I conformance?


I don't know the full answer, but you can start right now changing your DTOs
not to expose .NET-isms. Generics aren't universal, so should not be exposed
to clients of your service. Keep in mind that a web service may be accessed
from any kind of client, including those which aren't even modern
programming languages with a knowledge of generics or templates.

Also, as a matter of personal taste, I don't think it's a good idea to
expose a DTO at all in a web service. Even though a DTO masks the details of
your data layer, using one is forcing the concept of "data transfer" into
the awareness of the client. It's an implementation-level concept which, I
don't think, belongs in your web service contract.

Besides, what if your data layer changes - adds new columns, for instance.
Your clients should not see the difference. You had a contract with them,
and it didn't include those extra columns.


John


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rasheed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2006
John,

Thanks for your valuable inputs. We heavily depend on DTO to import data
from various legacy systems. The webservice will get the data as DTO structre
and import in to our database using Data Access Layer. This is similiar to
"Direct Integration of Legacy Data"

In previous version of the application, the legacy data integration happens
as a "batch" process. In this scenario, we are trying to eliminate the need
for batch processing of data. i.e. the legacy system will simply use the web
service to export the data to our database.

Are we doing anything wrong? Thanks for helping.






"John Saunders" wrote:

> "Rasheed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Please forgive my ignorance as I'm new to SOA related interoperability
> > issues. The requirement is to build interoperable web services which
> > should
> > conform to WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 (This requirement came little late in
> > the
> > development life cycle)
> >
> > The current web service implementation heavily uses Data Transfer Objects
> > (DTO) as parameters to web service (The DTO itself contains primitive data
> > types) . In few places .NET generics are used as well.
> > Having said,
> >
> > Do we conform to WS-I BP? Or To what degree we conform to WS-I BP?
> > If not, what would it take to make is WS-I conformance?

>
> I don't know the full answer, but you can start right now changing your DTOs
> not to expose .NET-isms. Generics aren't universal, so should not be exposed
> to clients of your service. Keep in mind that a web service may be accessed
> from any kind of client, including those which aren't even modern
> programming languages with a knowledge of generics or templates.
>
> Also, as a matter of personal taste, I don't think it's a good idea to
> expose a DTO at all in a web service. Even though a DTO masks the details of
> your data layer, using one is forcing the concept of "data transfer" into
> the awareness of the client. It's an implementation-level concept which, I
> don't think, belongs in your web service contract.
>
> Besides, what if your data layer changes - adds new columns, for instance.
> Your clients should not see the difference. You had a contract with them,
> and it didn't include those extra columns.
>
>
> John
>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Saunders
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-29-2006
"Rasheed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> John,
>
> Thanks for your valuable inputs. We heavily depend on DTO to import data
> from various legacy systems. The webservice will get the data as DTO
> structre
> and import in to our database using Data Access Layer. This is similiar to
> "Direct Integration of Legacy Data"
>
> In previous version of the application, the legacy data integration
> happens
> as a "batch" process. In this scenario, we are trying to eliminate the
> need
> for batch processing of data. i.e. the legacy system will simply use the
> web
> service to export the data to our database.
>
> Are we doing anything wrong? Thanks for helping.


Define "wrong". It's "right" until it's not.

If this is a special-purpose web service, then it doesn't matter what you
send back and forth, as long as the two ends, which you control, understand.
This will work until someone in Management decides that if you're using a
Web Service, that the same code should also be able to communicate with some
random system which does _not_ understand parts of your DTO. Then you'll
have to explain how it is that you used a platform-independant technology
like Web Services to produce a platform-dependant service!


John

>
> "John Saunders" wrote:
>
>> "Rasheed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Please forgive my ignorance as I'm new to SOA related interoperability
>> > issues. The requirement is to build interoperable web services which
>> > should
>> > conform to WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 (This requirement came little late in
>> > the
>> > development life cycle)
>> >
>> > The current web service implementation heavily uses Data Transfer
>> > Objects
>> > (DTO) as parameters to web service (The DTO itself contains primitive
>> > data
>> > types) . In few places .NET generics are used as well.
>> > Having said,
>> >
>> > Do we conform to WS-I BP? Or To what degree we conform to WS-I BP?
>> > If not, what would it take to make is WS-I conformance?

>>
>> I don't know the full answer, but you can start right now changing your
>> DTOs
>> not to expose .NET-isms. Generics aren't universal, so should not be
>> exposed
>> to clients of your service. Keep in mind that a web service may be
>> accessed
>> from any kind of client, including those which aren't even modern
>> programming languages with a knowledge of generics or templates.
>>
>> Also, as a matter of personal taste, I don't think it's a good idea to
>> expose a DTO at all in a web service. Even though a DTO masks the details
>> of
>> your data layer, using one is forcing the concept of "data transfer" into
>> the awareness of the client. It's an implementation-level concept which,
>> I
>> don't think, belongs in your web service contract.
>>
>> Besides, what if your data layer changes - adds new columns, for
>> instance.
>> Your clients should not see the difference. You had a contract with them,
>> and it didn't include those extra columns.
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
<profile><properties> with no Profile class Steven ASP .Net 5 10-24-2008 07:23 PM
Visual Studio 2008 asp.net web administration>profile: "The profile wasn't created"? Andy B ASP .Net 0 05-03-2008 05:15 PM
Basic Profile 1.1 Nick Locke ASP .Net Web Services 2 10-29-2006 12:01 AM
Want to profile monitor for Fuji Frontier ICC profile? Lynn Digital Photography 9 09-08-2005 12:17 PM
Java Web Start app icons keep going in user profile not All Users profile Brad Java 1 07-19-2005 02:10 AM



Advertisments