Re: Web Service Session State

Walden, check this out:

http://www.thinktecture.com/resourcearchive/tools-and-software/wscf/wscf
-walkthrough

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/ee335699.aspx


-----Original Message-----
From: systemidotnet-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:systemidotnet-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ibm
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 2:58 PM
To: .net use with the System i
Subject: Re: [SystemiDotNet] Web Service Session State

Answered my own question: see Tenet 3 @
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms954638.aspx

-----Original Message-----
From: systemidotnet-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:systemidotnet-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ibm
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 2:52 PM
To: .net use with the System i
Subject: Re: [SystemiDotNet] Web Service Session State

So are you saying that a truly interoperable service should stick to the
XML Schema standard ie. xsd:complexContent and xsd:simpleContent ?

-----Original Message-----
From: systemidotnet-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:systemidotnet-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walden H.
Leverich
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 2:39 PM
To: .net use with the System i
Subject: Re: [SystemiDotNet] Web Service Session State

I've not looked into implementing WS-* as I've always found them to be
too heavy handed for the task at hand. You really have to understand
what they're doing to decide if you want them. But yes, they are
basically extensions to the SOAP architecture.

As for the "types" to support. Unless you are _sure_ that this is an
internal-only web service that you're using for some sort of process
decoupling ONLY, you should never pass language-specific types in a web
service. You just cause too much trouble. Sure you can pass complex
types, but they should be made up of simple types. For example, don't
pass a List<string>, pass an array of strings.

-Walden