@steve + @adam; thanks for that advice. I'm glad I asked before I went
and refactored all the code. Thanks a million. I'll be interested to
see what others have to say.

On Nov 11, 2:32 pm, "Adam Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> I second Steve on the point below.. I have pulled out many a hair trying to 
> get
> complex datatypes to send/parse correctly between different platforms. They 
> work
> nicely between CF and CF, but try with CF and .NET and the 'fun' begins.
>
> Regards,
> Adam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Onnis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 2:07 PM
> To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Building a web service - can you pass in XML or 
> should the arguments be data typed
>
> "All CF datatypes are converted to SOAP equivalents"
>
> So it says but i have seen time and time again issues with the soap
> conversion and datatyping issues, especially with .NET
>
> Using XML you know exactly what you are getting.  Thats my reason.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Matthew
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 November 2008 2:04 PM
> To: cfaussie
> Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Building a web service - can you pass in XML or
> should the arguments be data typed
>
> @Steve, thanks again for replying. CF can handle complex data types no
> problem. All CF datatypes are converted to SOAP equivalents (http://
> livedocs.adobe.com/coldfusion/7/htmldocs/00001547.htm#1186403).
>
> As per my latest post it just seems crazy to have to write an
> additional XML parser to deciffer the XML submitted by the client
> (you'd need a whole lot of validation logic as well). Same goes for
> sending the data back - why not just let CF covert the objects into
> their equivalent SOAP datatypes.
>
> I can't see any benefit for receiving XML packets and returning XML
> packets!?!?!? Can anyone comment on reasons to do this?
>
> Cheers
> Matthew
>
> On Nov 11, 1:55 pm, "Steve Onnis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mathews
>
> > Its either/or.  I preferred the XML way so that's the way it was built.  I
> > guess what I was trying to say in my last email is there isn't a
> right/wrong
> > way, just what ever fits better with what you are trying to do.  Its
> easier
> > to search xml than it is to try and parse arguments if some arguments are
> > not required to be passed in.  Also I don't know if you will have issues
> > with things like passing in arrays and stuff into the web service because
> of
> > the data types possibly not being maintained in the request.  This is
> where
> > XML is better as you don't need to worry about it and you can handle it
> all
> > in your web service.
>
> > Steve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf
>
> > Of Matthew
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 November 2008 1:41 PM
> > To: cfaussie
> > Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Building a web service - can you pass in XML or
> > should the arguments be data typed
>
> > @Steve, Thanks for the response but I don't think you've understood me
> > correctly. I'll try to explain myself again.
>
> > Perhaps there is a CF web service guru out there that can help?
>
> > When building a web service, should the input arguments be a single
> > XML document (which defines the input parameters) or should you just
> > have an argument for each parameter. Or are both options acceptable?
> > It makes more sense to me to have a argument for each parameter
> > otherwise if you have an XML doc as the input you have to write your
> > own XML parser / validator. This is all built right into CF when you
> > choose access="remote".
>
> > I've been doing a little more reading and noted that you can
> > distribute your web service as an RPC (default in CF) or as "document-
> > literal style". I think the RPC system is the way I've been discussing
> > and the "document-literal style" option is the alternative where you
> > pass in a full XML document. Is RPC easier but compatible with fewer
> > technologies?
>
> > Cheers
> > Matthew
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"cfaussie" group.
To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to