Okay, I'm good to go. Thanks for this... was exactly what I needed.
Just to be sure that I have my usage of the extensions in proper
order, this is what I will be changing the Web.config file to specify
as the verbs that are associated with each extension. Obviously what
happens internally is really what matter most, and the user will never
need to worry about any of this, as it will be completely transparent,
except for the actual extension piece which is what I am hoping can be
used as a way to "self check" that the action they want to implement
is, in fact, what is about to take place.
If anybody can see anything wrong with this approach, please feel free
to blow it out of the water. I'm not worried about being wrong now,
and instead about being wrong later.
<httpHandlers>
<add verb="GET,HEAD" path="*.omx"
type="Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
<add verb="GET" path="*.atom"
type="Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
<add verb="POST" path="*.create"
type="Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
<add verb="PUT" path="*.update"
type="Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
<add verb="DELETE" path="*.delete"
type="Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
</httpHandlers>
On 6/7/06, M. David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm only two paragraphs in and can clearly see this is EXACTLY what I needed.
Thanks! I appreciate your help :)
On 6/7/06, M. David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/7/06, Joe Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Here is nice explaination:
> >
> >
http://www.elharo.com/blog/software-development/web-development/2005/12/08/post-vs-put/
> >
>
> Thanks! Will read this now.
>
> > And no, the use of PUT and POST in the APP is not
> > the opposite of what is stated in RFC 2616, it is quite
> > in line with RFC 2616.
>
> I'm not suggesting the explanation that I attached was not poorly
> written/worded such as to be confusing, just that the way it reads
> seems to suggest the opposite. Again, not in any way, shape, or form,
> attempting to start a war, and instead simply try to gain
> understanding. The way the RFC 2616 is worded, it seems to suggest
> that the two do not match. None-the-less, with full understanding of
> who's behind the development of the APP spec, I can only assume I
> simply need to gain a greater understanding of RFC 2616.
>
> >
> > -joe
> >
> > --
> > Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
> >
>
>
> --
> <M:D/>
>
> M. David Peterson
> http://www.xsltblog.com/
>
--
<M:D/>
M. David Peterson
http://www.xsltblog.com/
--
<M:D/>
M. David Peterson
http://www.xsltblog.com/
