Is anyone interesting in starting and managing a workspace on gotdotnet.com
to create a c# implementation that could be used in ASP.NET, console apps,
windows forms, etc? And then, would anyone be interested in contributing?
I know I can do the latter in the near term but the former wouldn't be
> Can you explain this better? In particular, what do you see as the set of
> possible solutions of which none are elegant?
>
Solutions are cheaper to extend than others while maintaining
backward compatibility. For example adding a new field to an xml document
parsed by a custom pars
>>I'd gladly write a C# implementation using TCP sockets to share with
everyone, except that I *know* I will run into a problem with the
encryption that will cost me time I am unwilling to spend.
Been there done that - with VB.net I never got past the encryption stage
after hours of study on crypt
> I am getting the following error on Horizon when submitting a cert order:
>
> 'response_text' => 'pricing error',
>
> The "major code" is 7000... Can anyone explain this error
I am quite glad that my inquiry sparked such a lively conversation. The
dev-list used to be an interesting list, it's
>>Your statement "it matters to everyone who is integrating a domain
business into their operations..." is just exactly that.
OK I'll cop to an over-generalization.
>>You aren't addressing what you perceive as an impossible flaw in the
technology.
You are putting words in my mouth - I'm using t
> You log in, you stream 1 or more requests, and you exit.
You missed the responses to the requests.
Is it:
A) connect/auth, request, request, request, response, response, response,
disconnect
-or-
B) connect/auth, request, response, request, response, request, response,
disconnect
(A) works
.. or point out that he's asking for a "free lunch"?
-- Manuel Garcia O'Kelly-Davis
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:03:48 -0600, Adam Selene wrote:
> Tell you what, I'll stop complaining about the lack of a standard
> interface if OpenSRS's programmers can do the following:
>
> Create two HelloWorld appli
.. am I the only one who wants to call "Adam" by his real name, Mike?
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:03:48 -0600, Adam Selene wrote:
> Tell you what, I'll stop complaining about the lack of a standard
> interface if OpenSRS's programmers can do the following:
>
> Create two HelloWorld applications that au
Tell you what, I'll stop complaining about the lack of a standard
interface if OpenSRS's programmers can do the following:
Create two HelloWorld applications that authenticate with
OpenSRS and peform one simple message exchange (e.g. Hello
World).
One written in Java, one written in C#, using o
Tim Woodcock wrote:
[lots of stuff]
[warning, sweeping generalisations follow]
So - we have the OpenSRS protocol, which appears to be partly documented
in Perl, and apparently difficult to implement elsewhere, yet is pretty
quick.
Then we have SOAP, which has client libraries everywhere already
> SOAP has a lot of overhead, sure, compared to the XCP/TPP XML
> that OpenSRS developed.
No one (AFAIK) is suggesting OpenSRS change their message format
and APIs, just offer a standard communications protocol to exchange
the existing messages and access the existing APIs.
XML data can be passe
> SOAP's not tied to a single transport. When run over HTTP, as is most
> common, you make one request, and get one reply. You can run SOAP over a
> bare TCP connection though, and in that case you're free to make as many
> requests as you like over that connection.
So it is not the protocol t
Tim Woodcock wrote:
A question for you.
Is SOAP a request language or a stream language?
The request below is in request format. You send a request, and get an
answer back.
That is NOT the way opensrs operates.
The OpenSRS system is set up so that you open the connection and send a
stream of
A question for you.
Is SOAP a request language or a stream language?
The request below is in request format. You send a request, and get an
answer back.
That is NOT the way opensrs operates.
The OpenSRS system is set up so that you open the connection and send a
stream of commands to the serv
Much of the time the premise seems to be "well, I can't do the current
API on my platform" -- and the available implementations (in PHP and
as an Active-X component) seem to suggest otherwise.
As the developer of the PHP client, I'll throw in a few comments here.
Developing the PHP client was no
Tim Woodcock wrote:
"SOAP" and simple do not belong together in the same sentence.
If you want simple, XML is ok. But SOAP is a way of adding software
context on top of data. That is not simplicity.
Yes, the SOAP on-the-wire protocols are complicated, especially when you
start adding WSDL int
I try to do my very best to avoid ad-hominum arguments, but frankly
Your statement "it matters to everyone who is integrating a domain business into their
operations..." is just exactly that.
You aren't addressing what you perceive as an impossible flaw in the technology.
You're saying tha
>>The people who are complaining are complaining because OpenSRS doesn't
do "x" where "x" is their favorite thing.
I'm advocating for XML WEB Services because the OPENSRS system does not
use ANY standards - it connects to a non standard port, communicates
using a homegrown protocol that has encryp
Here is a suggestion.
If we are going to change the communication protocol, why not go really
simple and use YAML?
This is a serious suggestion. XML is inherently bulky.
YAML is becoming well supported throughout the various modern languages,
and it cuts down on the bandwidth required to transm
This is going to be very inflamatory, but there are a few things I have to
say.
...
"SOAP" and simple do not belong together in the same sentence.
If you want simple, XML is ok. But SOAP is a way of adding software
context on top of data. That is not simplicity.
It would be fairly easy for
Lynn,
Years ago, when I was in college, it used to be fun to walk into a room and say "x" is the best programming language and watch the resulting argument.
Bad boy! :-)
That seems to have been replaced with "x" is the best standard for data interchange.
.. and unlike the early days, when thi
I'm sorry John,
Let me try to clarify my point:
The people who are complaining are complaining because OpenSRS doesn't do "x" where
"x" is their favorite thing.
Much of the time the premise seems to be "well, I can't do the current API on my
platform" -- and the available implementations (in P
>> it now seems to all be SOAP, XML, .NET, whatever -- but very
Microsoft.
SOAP and XML are anything but MS centric, being standards much like SMTP
and HTTP
.NET is an application framework that runs on MS platforms ( and maybe
UNIX/Linux at some point). You can program in any supported languag
Years ago, when I was in college, it used to be fun to walk into a room and say "x" is
the best programming language and watch the resulting argument.
That seems to have been replaced with "x" is the best standard for data interchange.
.. and unlike the early days, when this list was dominated b
.. but how would this translate to non-Microsoft platforms?
I don't write ASP.NET, so this makes about as much sense as the matching Perl.
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:11:46 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My first suggestion is to use the built in WebRequest Class and ditch
> using "unmanaged code",
Hello, on your code what type of page declarations did you use?
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 5:11 AM
Subject: RE: ASP.NET & OpenSRS dev.
> My first suggestion is to use the built in WebReques
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Leonid Igolnik wrote:
> Although SOAP over SSL would very simple to implement and deploy, it
> creates a maintenance nightmare when changing method signatures. There
> is no elegant solution to this problem and IMHO this is a major problem
> with deploying SOAP in our environme
It's not going to work using the HTTP object, because the comm protocol
is custom and nonstandard. Data is sent on port 55000, and there's a
specific dance you must do with the server in order to be authenticated.
Unfortunately, you can't just do GETs and PUTs to communicate with the
server...t
Adam Selene wrote:
SOAP over SSL would be the simplest and most standard,
I can't believe how long this request has been left unanswered.
TuCows,
Yep. Actually I found this more important than the CGIs (brrr!) - Tucows
should have started with a standard interface _first_, and do the CGIs
later
My first suggestion is to use the built in WebRequest Class and ditch
using "unmanaged code", as in the XMLHTTP COM object.
Dim payload as string
Dim req As WebRequest
Dim RequestStream As Stream
Dim ReceiveStream As Stream
Dim s
Another voice in the winderness...
No need to fire anybody, they can implement a WEB Service in PERL, just
do it soon !
We have large parts of the ASP.NET client written, I've been stuck
learning TCPIP Sockets and cryptography, which would become COMPLETELY
UNNECESSARY if the server spoke XML WEB
How is this different from any deployed client-server application?
This is a *VERY* weak straw man argument you've advanced, Leonid
John Roche
einfosystems.net
Microsoft Certified Partner
-Original Message-
From: Leonid Igolnik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 26,
32 matches
Mail list logo
