Is Biztalk an admission of OOP failure?
- From: "stork" <tbandrow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 Oct 2006 12:12:42 -0700
BizTalk orchestrations can be precisely mapped to old style procedural
languages:
A message is a structure
An orchestration is a program
A loop is a loop
A decide is an if-then
All of this visually represented, and that's nice, and the Xml mapper
is ok too. But, once you get past all the bells and whistles, Biztalk
is a visual scripting environment for procedure languages. There's no
data hiding, no encapsulation, none of the leg work that characterises
best practice for OOP programming.
So.... the question is, if Biztalk is truly the answer to making
business programming simpler, then, why on earth should those who do
conventional programming do things like data hiding and encapsulation
if the premier MS product doesn't support it?
It's great that MS stuffed it all on top of .NET, I guess, but, at the
end of the day, couldn't you just get rid of the .NET portion of
Biztalk and implement the whole thing on top of a simpler procedural
language from the get go?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is Biztalk an admission of OOP failure?
- From: McGeeky
- Re: Is Biztalk an admission of OOP failure?
- Prev by Date: Re: Custom Pipeline - Error Message
- Next by Date: Re: SQL NotificationServices Errors
- Previous by thread: Custom Pipeline - Error Message
- Next by thread: Re: Is Biztalk an admission of OOP failure?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|