Really? the only way to call Rest API's is with a third party add on?
I was kind of looking for the out of the box way. But will have a look at
RestSharp, always handy to know whats out there. They invent this stuff
faster than anyone can learn it all. :)
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Mark
WebAPI are just normal urls like web pages. You can call using HttpClient
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.net.http.httpclient.aspx
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Stephen Price step...@perthprojects.comwrote:
Really? the only way to call Rest API's is with a third party add on?
Absolutely, there's nothing locking you into using a third-party tool to
access a REST endpoint. For me RestSharp had too many nice features in it
that made it an easy decision for me to justify using, but YMMV.
NuGet also makes it nice and easy to add this stuff to your projects, but
it's
.net client: httpclient
Webpage: ajax get/post
On 1 Feb 2013 18:16, Stephen Price step...@perthprojects.com wrote:
Really? the only way to call Rest API's is with a third party add on?
I was kind of looking for the out of the box way. But will have a look at
RestSharp, always handy to know
I believe it is an artefact of wanting to enable SPA (Single Page
applications). That is, a web app, using mostly a single page, comprised of
a lot of javascript calls to a WebApi backend.
It will be rationalised soon enough I believe.
- Glav
From:
HttpClient as already suggested but, the framework does suffer from a myriad
of choices (mostly due to historical choices). HttpWebRequest can do it too,
any number of proxies as well. Or you can go lower level but I would suggest
getting familiar with HttpClient. That way of working is the way
Webapi is a reaction to attitudes as described below.
People were foregoing WCF due to complexity and a variety of other reasons.
MVC was being used (with a bit of code) to produce simple JSON/XML Rest
api's. The team took this onboard, altered their view of world as they were
writing the Web
I must be getting old.
XML-rpc (simple XML http)
XML-soap complex ish
Wcf. Really complex
Rest/Jason complex ish
Web API simple
A full turn of the wheel in 12 years.
I get a new intern on my team next week, I wonder what new ideas he will
bring. Maybe flat text config files?
Davy the Older
But then with all of these, you have to also think of Microsoft's new Service
Bus for Windows server (used to only be on Azure). This supports I think some
of the things that WCF never did such as publish/subscribe.
From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Paul Glavich subscripti...@theglavs.comwrote:
Webapi is a reaction to attitudes as described below.
[ ... ]
Ofcourse WCF can do REST too, you just have to twiddle a few hundred
different knobs on the right way. I would argue WCF is not bullshit. WCF
Folks, I'm pleased to see that other people here are irritated by the
number of choices we have for communication and by the complexity of WCF. I
was also pleased to see someone else was bewlidered by having WebAPI buried
inside MVC and found a way of starting with a managable skeleton project.
I must be getting old too Greg. Your rants are starting to make sense. I'm
even nodding my head as I read.
I've said it before, they invent this stuff faster than anyone can learn
it. Lets hope its heading in the right direction. For the children's sake.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Greg
Hi Folks,
Anyone know if there's anything better than Dragon for transcription
software?
Regards,
Greg
Dr Greg Low
CEO and Principal Mentor
SQL Down Under
SQL Server MVP and Microsoft Regional Director
1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
I actually fully agree. I have been in the industry for a while now as well
and have seen the circle of dev life :) Kinda like clothes
.. one day, those
blue spandex shorts will come back into fashion :)
- Glav
From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
Your kinda missing the point. Abstracting is not just so you can swap out
another tech in its place. In fact, that aspect of abstraction is somewhat
of a practical fallacy but that is another thing.
Working with WCF and MSMQ is quite easy.
Using the same principles, you can work with TCP
At the risk of being argumentative, we asked for this. Maybe not you or me
specifically, but the community at large has. I agree the number of
technologies at play, particularly in this space is large but it makes it
all the more *interesting* to make those architectural choices. In some
ways,
16 matches
Mail list logo
