Hi,
Please refer “DeveloperUserGuide.pdf” Page no 433

Operator Syntax Description
= a = b Equal to.
This example… Evaluates to true if…

customerID = “webMethods”
The value of the customerId variable is “webMethods.”

Operator Syntax Description
== a == b Equal to.

This example… Evaluates to true if…
sku == “WM001” The value of the sku variable is
“WM001.”"

Both are Same, or can anybody tell what is the reason for keeping both operators ? if they serve same perpose
Or what is the difference between both operators ?

NOTE: From Developer perspective i kow the difference.

Regards,
Puneet Saxena

Hi Puneet

The information in the guide seems confusing as both tell the same functionality.

But the basic difference between the operators (=) assignment and (==) comparison.

Cheers
Jeevan

Jeevan,

That may be true in java but it is not true in Flow. The relational operators listed on the page that Puneet referenced are both used for comparison.

As for why both are kept, I believe it is because broker still uses the “==” operator for comparison in filters.

Mark

Hi Mark

Thanks , I really never tried it out , surely would !!

Cheers
Jeevan

Thanks Mark/Jeevan,

This is just my opinion, but I believe that the reason why Flow supports both operators is because webMethods markets the Developer as an easy-to-use tool that can be used by developers of any background (ex. Java, C, VisualBasic, COBOL, etc.) Therefore, by supporting different operators, each developer is able to code the services in a manner that makes them feel most comfortable.

• Percio

Percio,

I would go for that theory if there was any other supporting evidence that WM was concerned about ease of use in Developer.

Flow is simple compared to other languages, but adding more comparison operators makes it more complex not less so, IMHO.

Any while a text window masquerading as a java source editor is simple I wouldn’t say it is more simple than a java editor with search, replace and a modest amount of syntax highlighting or, be still my heart, auto completion.

Mark