<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>











<rss version="2.0" xmlns:jf="http://www.jivesoftware.com/xmlns/jiveforums/rss">



<channel>
    <title>Support Forums: Message List - Contract-First or Code-First Design - Part 1 of a Conversation</title>
    <link>http://www.theserverside.com</link>
    <description>Most recent forum messages</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
        <generator>Jive Forums Silver 5.5.30 (www.jivesoftware.com)</generator>
    
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:42:50 -0400</pubDate>


    <item>

        <title>Re: waterfall model is dead</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[I agree with your comments. An iterative approach to the development of a contract really is the way to go. No matter how good a developer/architect who is establishing a contract for a service, he/she is still human, and would not be able to foresee the...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:30:04 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:30:04 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:30:04 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 14, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Amit Karandikar</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: Contract-First or Code-First Design - Part 1 of a Conversati</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote>Contract first is a must for web services, because you don't want to expose the way your software is made inside, because you have to check if your schema is correctly understood by toolkits, etc. etc. </blockquote>...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:34:38 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:34:38 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:34:38 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 13, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>william c</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: Contract-First or Code-First Design - Part 1 of a Conversation</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[I agree with you, SOAP/WSDL is just an interoperability technology, and it's not mandatory to define the contract of your service as a WSDL file. But when you do create a SOAP frontend of your service, you should begin by designing the WSDL, with...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:03:22 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:03:22 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:03:22 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 13, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Fran?ois Lemaire</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: Contract-First or Code-First Design - Part 1 of a Conversati</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote>Not designing WSDL before your code does not mean you're not using contract-first methodology.  If you have a well designed domain model, your application service interfaces are the contract and simply exposing them as SOAP web services does...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 03:26:00 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 03:26:00 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 03:26:00 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 13, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Guido Anzuoni</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: waterfall model is dead</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<b>+1</b>...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:49:36 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:49:36 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:49:36 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 12, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Paul Beckford</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: Contract-First or Code-First Design - Part 1 of a Conversation</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[Not designing WSDL before your code does not mean you're not using contract-first methodology.  If you have a well designed domain model, your application service interfaces are the contract and simply exposing them as SOAP web services does not mean...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:35:28 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:35:28 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:35:28 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 12, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Ilya Sterin</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>2</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: Contract-First or Code-First Design - Part 1 of a Conversation</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[Contract first is a must for web services, because you don't want to expose the way your software is made inside, because you have to check if your schema is correctly understood by toolkits, etc. etc. But it doesn't mean you have to be stupid and never...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:30:13 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:30:13 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:30:13 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 12, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Fran?ois Lemaire</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>1</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: waterfall model is dead</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote>It's not a simple decision of one is better than the other, as your melodramatic assessment of contract-first/waterfall being a "pretty stupid thing to do" implies. </blockquote>...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:58:36 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:58:36 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:58:36 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 12, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>jilles van gurp</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: eh no</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[I used to do it that way too. Problem was that if for example you have three other applications were using the same domain model. Doing it code first was imposing our own domain model onto these applications in addition to the one they were using to...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:51:38 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:51:38 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:51:38 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 12, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Alexander Bollaert</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: Contract-First or Code-First Design</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[Sounds no different than the debates in the '90s on whether to write your CORBA IDL first or your object impl classes first.

Randy]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:44:01 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:44:01 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:44:01 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 12, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Randy  Schnier</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>eh no</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[I write the code first. Bang on the code, interface and the data it exchanges until I really like it and then, as a last step, freeze the interface. That's roughly the idea behind iterative development. You don't commit to contracts until the latest...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:14:51 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:14:51 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:14:51 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 12, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>jilles van gurp</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>1</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>the intermediate solution</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[I agree that writing WSDL and XML Schema is quite painful....]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:30:12 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:30:12 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:30:12 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 12, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Anthony Goubard</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>2</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: waterfall model is dead</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[Also when you generate the WSDL from the code, it generates the types and messages that get exchanged. This kind of exposes the internal data model of the application to the outside world (clients), that have to talk to the webservice using types that...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:23:50 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:23:50 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:23:50 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 12, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Alexander Bollaert</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: waterfall model is dead</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[An iterative approach doesn't rule out contract first, what it does rule out is getting the contract right first-off, or before we start coding.  ...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:37:12 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:37:12 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:37:12 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 12, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Ashley Aitken</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>2</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: waterfall model is dead</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=44966</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[It's not a simple decision of one is better than the other, as your melodramatic assessment of contract-first/waterfall being a "pretty stupid thing to do" implies. It all depends on the use case, which seems to be hinted at by the conversation snippet. ...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:31:29 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:31:29 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:31:29 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 12, 2007</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Robert Smith</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>4</jf:replyCount>
    </item>



</channel>
</rss>

