Since CFHTTP support is broken in all versions since CF 4.5 (as in
CFHTTPPARAM automatically urlencodes all the names and values, and there's
nothing we can do about it), I was wondering if there are any CFMX
alternatives to CFHTTP, short of writing your own java classes every time
you need to
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:16:17 -0400, Russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since CFHTTP support is broken in all versions since CF 4.5 (as in
CFHTTPPARAM automatically urlencodes all the names and values, and there's
nothing we can do about it), I was wondering if there are any CFMX
alternatives to
, September 02, 2004 10:52 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFHTTP Alternatives
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:16:17 -0400, Russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since CFHTTP support is broken in all versions since CF 4.5 (as in
CFHTTPPARAM automatically urlencodes all the names and values, and there's
nothing we can do
There is an alternative written in c++
http://www.cftagstore.com/tags/cfxhttp5.cfm
I havn't used it but the claims made on the website are impressive.
Andrew.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:18:05 -0400, Russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did read the docs. The docs state:
encoded
Optional
Yes
Applies to FormField and CGI types; ignored for all other types. Specifies
whether to URLEncode the form field or header.
I am using it on a cookie type.
Yes, it really is an issue, as several sites that I'm pulling the data from
require login, and they don't recognize the URLEncoded session cookies sent
by CF.
Russ
_
From: Dave Carabetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 11:31 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFHTTP
Thanks Andrew, I'll try it. Seems impressive.
Russ
_
From: Andrew Grosset [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 11:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFHTTP Alternatives
There is an alternative written in c++
http://www.cftagstore.com/tags/cfxhttp5.cfm
I havn't used
Russ wrote:
I did read the docs. The docs state:
encodedOptional Yes
Applies to FormField and CGI types; ignored for all other types. Specifies
whether to URLEncode the form field or header.
I am using it on a cookie type.
IIRC you can use the CGI type to send cookies as well:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 18:01:25 +0200, Jochem van Dieten
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ wrote:
I did read the docs. The docs state:
encodedOptional Yes
Applies to FormField and CGI types; ignored for all other types. Specifies
whether to URLEncode the form field or header.
I am using
Ok, in order to talk to eBay's API, I need to send XML requests with
UNENCODED custom headers. So obviously CFHTTP is out. ;( I've been using
for the last year or more the MSXML ServerHTTP object and that has been
fine. Except now I'm having problems that I can't seem to fix (server
crashes when
I've managed to use CFX_RawSocket and CFX_XMLTools to successful request
and parse my eBay XML. Dropping need of two COM objects and completely my
reliant tag porting to Java...
Except, the call to eBay with CFX_RawSocket takes two minutes to complete.
What the heck? Anyone have this experience
, 2003 10:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: HELP! MSXML ServerHTTP and CFHTTP alternatives?
Ok, in order to talk to eBay's API, I need to send XML requests with
UNENCODED custom headers. So obviously CFHTTP is out. ;( I've been using
for the last year or more the MSXML ServerHTTP object and that has been
fine
Ok, in order to talk to eBay's API, I need to send XML requests with
UNENCODED custom headers. So obviously CFHTTP is out. ;( I've been using
for the last year or more the MSXML ServerHTTP object and that has been
fine. Except now I'm having problems that I can't seem to fix (server
crashes when
Thanks. I found that last night and got it working. Except, it takes two
minutes to return a call from eBay (The sample call to UPS included with
the tag works fine). Can't figure out why...
CFX_RawSocket
If you can use MX you can use the new cfhttpparam type=XML
--
Bud Schneehagen -
Are there any reliable alternatives for using CFHTTP on Unix (in my case,
Solaris, but migrating to Linux in the near future)? I need to pass large
WDDX packets to a Python server extensively, and CFHTTP is just not an
adequate, scalable solution. Time is also a big factor, so rolling my own
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:50:24 -0400, Dave Carabetta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any reliable alternatives for using CFHTTP on Unix (in my case,
Solaris, but migrating to Linux in the near future)? I need to pass large
WDDX packets to a Python server extensively, and CFHTTP is just not an
Dave Carabetta wrote:
Are there any reliable alternatives for using CFHTTP on Unix (in my case,
Solaris, but migrating to Linux in the near future)? I need to pass large
WDDX packets to a Python server extensively, and CFHTTP is just not an
adequate, scalable solution. Time is also a big
17 matches
Mail list logo
