> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the info John. However, I would like to base the decision on
> some kind of reasoning, which convention is most popular ?
Why do you assume that reasoning is involved in what is, essentially, an
matter of taste?
The only practical reasons I've ever heard are shared by the two platforms.
They both use camel case so that word breaks are clearly visible, at a
glance. thisIsAMethod is more readable than this_is_a_method. However,
ThisIsAMethod and
thisIsAMethod
are pretty much the same.
I think there may be some reasoning around "capitalize the important
things". In that sense, I, personally would vote for method names being
important enough to capitalize. The Java camp thinks that class names are
important enough to capitalize, but not method names. This may be because
Java doesn't use properties, as C# does, so they may be capitalizing method
names at the same level as attribute names (which start with lower case).
That makes a sort of sense.
Being "in the .NET camp", I get to use properties, for which I use a leading
capital letter, the same as I do for methods. This leads me to use leading
capitals on my method names.
Of course, it would be simpler to simply document your reasoning by saying
that "John Saunders said so"... ;-)
John
P.S. I was using IBM Rational Application Developer as a tool to prove that
my WSDL can be consumed by Java. I noticed that it actually warns you
against using leading capital letters in method names. You actually get a
little yellow warning icon saying "that method name is not recommended".
RYoung - 21 Sep 2006 19:00 GMT
"John Saunders" <john.saunders at trizetto.com> wrote in message >
> P.S. I was using IBM Rational Application Developer as a tool to prove
> that my WSDL can be consumed by Java. I noticed that it actually warns you
> against using leading capital letters in method names. You actually get a
> little yellow warning icon saying "that method name is not recommended".
That's a pretty goofy warning. I was curious about what interesting things
you may have encountered that made it necessary to prove your WSDL can be
consumed by Java. Have you documented anything about that on the web?
Ron
John Saunders - 21 Sep 2006 21:37 GMT
> "John Saunders" <john.saunders at trizetto.com> wrote in message >
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> you may have encountered that made it necessary to prove your WSDL can be
> consumed by Java. Have you documented anything about that on the web?
I don't have a document, but IBM does:
Web Services support for Schema/WSDL(s) containing optional JAX-RPC 1.0/1.1
XML Schema Types at
(http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21207642).
They seem to feel the fact that this is a JAX-RPC issue absolves them from
the responsibility for fixing the bug.
John
P.S. I don't want to leave the impression that Java is bad with web
services. There are some things that the IBM stuff did well. For instance,
it translates SOAP faults in the WSDL into actual exceptions. .NET won't
even include them in a generated WSDL for you.
It was also good to see what code got generated in Java vs. C#. I wouldn't
_want_ my clients to have to jump through hoops in order to use my web
service, just because they happened to choose Java for development.