XML Nation - All Comments

prelolita bbs

prelolita bbs — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:23:52 GMT

Pingback from prelolita bbs

Cloudy skies, cloudy apps… « Gob??n Saor

Cloudy skies, cloudy apps… « Gob??n Saor — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:56:41 GMT

Pingback from Cloudy skies, cloudy apps… « Gob??n Saor

Lexapro.

Lexapro. — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:30:09 GMT

Side effects of drug lexapro.

2girlsonecup com

2girlsonecup com — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:47:02 GMT

Pingback from 2girlsonecup com

bbs prelolita

bbs prelolita — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:59:08 GMT

Pingback from bbs prelolita

re: MSDN2 hit the streets

Seslisohbetler — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:30:35 GMT

We are in the process of migrating the Office Developer Center and all the MSDN Library Office developer content to MSDN2! I love to blog about anything related to Office development, but this time I will share with you some information related with MSDN that you might find interesting.

re: MSDN2 hit the streets

Seslisohbetler — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:30:12 GMT

Du kan se en tidlig release af MSDN2 hos Microsoft. Vi er sluppet for den s

re: MSDN2 hit the streets

Seslisohbetler — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:29:58 GMT

Du kan se en tidlig release af MSDN2 hos Microsoft. Vi er sluppet for den s

re: MSDN2 hit the streets

oyunlar — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:16:38 GMT

wrote ADO.NET and System.Xml v. 2.0--The Beta Version (2nd Edition) now Published

re: Michi Henning weighs in...

Adrian Tawse — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:38:00 GMT

Rather late to the party but go see www.connectivelogic.co.uk

re: ROA vs GET/POST

Erik Johnson — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:22:00 GMT

Like you and I have been saying for years now, the message *is* the task. I don't see the value in quibbling over the roles I've chosen for HTTP verbs, URIs, or the payload itself when it comes to defining business intent.

In my stuff, PUT went completely on the back burner in favor of POST. That wasn't because I failed to break out of the RPC mindset -- it was because GET/PUT imply payload symmetry. In other words, for a given URI, the message format for what I GET is not the same as the format for what I PUT even though both are directly related to the same resource.

I thought using PUT would run afoul of the spirit of RFC-2616, which says the resource you PUT somehow overwrites data with a new representation. Many applications need a little better semantic fidelity than GET/PUT the same block of data – although maybe not much. That’s why POST was put into HTTP in the first place.

re: ROA vs GET/POST

Ali — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:37:00 GMT

My limited understanding is that it (POST v PUT/DELETE) may very well vary by a particular scenario. I think you need to take into account whether any of the following provide any benefits for you:

1. Idempotency of PUT and DELETE. (eg. retry scenarios.)
2. It's understood that PUT allows the client to specify the URL.
3. It's understood that PUT replaces the resource entirely (rather than append or whatever through POST).

I'm finding the different semantics implied by 2 and 3 to be particularly handy. I'm not sure how well this addresses the process vs. data distinction you have in mind though.

re: ROA vs GET/POST

Paul H. — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:07:00 GMT

>>But, what’s the value of this over just doing a POST with the data I want to process and getting the result back?

You first need to break out of the process-as-procedure-call mindset ;-)

PUT/POST to create a new process instance resource
PUT to initialize the process instance state
PUT to initiate the execution of the process instance
GET to fetch the current state of the process instance

Processes are not procedure calls - processes are long-running business (for lack of a better term) "value chains" ... a process could take days, weeks, or years to complete (e.g., the order-handling process at Amazon typically spans days or weeks; the lifecycle management process for a physical business asset could span years) ... as such, querying for the current state of a process instance is a routine occurrence (e.g., checking "Where's My Stuff?" on Amazon).

re: Don asked for input...

davidacoder — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:42:00 GMT

Actually, I think the LINQ to XML support might reduce the need for a template engine for output. Even more so with VB, don't you think? But even in C#, I find almost all pain in constructing XML in code gone with that.

re: Don asked for input...

David — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:03:00 GMT

I am fairly new to xml/soap messaging. For several weeks I have been attempting to send a predefined SOAP message to a customer. The problem we have been encountering is that the .NET soap classes under Microsoft.Web.Services3 always seem to inject addressing components in the header. We have already established the entire SOAP envelope, and our customer rejects the message, because the Send or SendRequestResponse methods always add additional information to the envelope header.

Is there a way to turn off the automatic addressing and just send a SOAP message? Are there any classes in the .NET framework that will allow us to create an envelope ourselves (in the format that our customer needs including the header), encrypt it using a certificate, and send it via https transport and still be able to receive a response from the customer?

Any help or direction would be greatly appreciated.