@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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
