ServicesResourcesConferencesOur TeamWeblogsAboutContact
   

Subscriptions

Post Categories

News

    MicrosoftBizTalkBlogs

Affiliations

Archives
What's in a name? "Generate..."
  • "... Data Types"
  • "... Data Contracts"
  • "... Data Transfer Objects"

Please help us in finding the optimal way of naming the major new feature in WSCF 0.7. Go and vote by leaving a comment for this post. Thanks!

Note: we do not support WCF with WSCF 0.7, but Data Contract is in this case rather a common term.
posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:08 PM

# re: What's in a name? "Generate..." @ Tuesday, October 03, 2006 6:09 PM

I prefer "... Data Types."

I frequently use WSCF to generate data types from XSD on projects that aren't even messaging systems.

I think the contract is the actual XSD, not the objects that represent the XSD, and transfer objects implies that the generated code is only suitable for messaging systems, which isn't actually the case.

I'll just be glad that I don't have to generate WSDL and ASMX on these projects any more.
T.J.

# re: What's in a name? "Generate..." @ Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:34 PM

Christian,

In my opinion you should Data Contract. It’s the concept that matters in this case. Ideally there should be a consistent naming between the ASMX and (possible/future?) WCF implementation.

Cheers,

Edward

Edward

# Link Listing - October 3, 2006 @ Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:06 AM

jQuery Spy [Via: Dion Almaer ] What's in a name? "Generate..." [Via: CWeyer ] Inline XSD in WSDL with...
Christopher Steen

# re: What's in a name? "Generate..." @ Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:42 AM

wscf is all about interoperability so i think if it's not too much over the fence that dto should fit the convention and this paricular context (interoperability context).
danijel


© 2002 - 2006 by thinktecture, Ingo Rammer and Christian Weyer. All rights reserved.

Powered by Community Server, by Telligent Systems