Welcome to MSDN Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

Browse by Tags

All Tags » Web Services » .NET Framework   (RSS)
Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:45 PM

Web Services Quiz: Issue 10 - the Answer

The correct answer to Issue 10 was already mentioned by Andrew & Mario : Service T1 will deny access, and therefore return a HTTP status 401 error: “Access Denied” If we want to allow the called services to impersonate the caller’s identity, we have
Posted by beatsch | 1 Comments
Saturday, March 12, 2005 5:16 PM

Link to the XSD Object Generator download site

For all who attended my Web Services Competency Workshop in Madrid : Here’s a link to the XSDObjectGen.exe tool.
Posted by beatsch | 3 Comments
Monday, September 27, 2004 9:33 AM

What's wrong with rpc-literal?

This post is part of Issue 8’s answer To say it as clear and simple as possible: rpc style encoding is more about the service implementation than the message on the wire itself. That’s just wrong! As already discussed in this answer series , every rpc-literal
Posted by beatsch | 1 Comments
Monday, August 23, 2004 5:26 PM

How to consume an rpc-literal WS using .NET?

This post is part of Issue 8’s answer The previous post in this answer series discussed rpc-literal from a platform independent standpoint, where this post focuses on the consumption of such services using .NET . You may ask why consumption only? Well,
Posted by beatsch | 3 Comments
Friday, August 13, 2004 4:21 PM

What is rpc-literal anyway?

Although it’s a longtime ago, I want to follow up with the promised explanations for Issue 8 : Prolog: WS BP 1.0 prohibits the usage of rpc-encoded but explicitly allows rpc-literal. But what is rpc-literal anyway? Rpc stands for remote procedure call.
Posted by beatsch | 5 Comments
Sunday, May 23, 2004 6:56 PM

Web Services Quiz: Issue 8 - the Answer

The number one problem in dealing with rpc-literal Web Services is the fact that they are unsupported on the .NET platform, yet. However, every rpc-literal message can be “built” using a doc-literal based implementations. By doing so, the .NET stub for
Posted by beatsch | 5 Comments
Friday, May 14, 2004 6:40 PM

Web Services Quiz: Issue 8

Given the following WSDL, how does your .NET proxy and stub look like? As always, answer and explanation will follow… Note, it’s rpc-literal … <? xml version ="1.0" encoding ="utf-8"?> < wsdl:definitions targetNamespace ="uri.test.com"
Posted by beatsch | 5 Comments
Friday, May 14, 2004 6:38 PM

Web Services Quiz: Issue 7 - the Answer

The answer to Issue 7 is the following: < wsdl:binding name ="CalculatorSoap" type ="tns:CalculatorPortType"> < soap:binding style ="rpc" transport ="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http"/> < wsdl:operation name ="Add"> < soap:operation
Posted by beatsch | 0 Comments
Wednesday, May 05, 2004 4:04 PM

Web Services Quiz: Issue 7

The following Issue arose out of several enquires. Here is the consolidated question: How does the corresponding SOAP binding look like if you want to get a WS-I compliant WSDL? As always, answer and explanation will follow… <? xml version ="1.0"
Posted by beatsch | 3 Comments
Sunday, April 25, 2004 10:09 PM

Web Services Quiz: Issue 6 - the Answer

The answer to Issue 6 is maybe a bit surprising. One of the keys for successfully answering the quiz lies in the understanding of XML schema types . In the given example, xsd:integer has been applied to the message’s elements. It’s important
Posted by beatsch | 0 Comments
Friday, April 16, 2004 4:56 PM

Web Services Quiz: Issue 6

Given the following schema, how will your corresponding CLR types look like? As always, answer and explanation will follow… < xsd:schema targetNamespace ="http://beatsch/issue6/types" xmlns : tns ="http://beatsch/issue6/types" xmlns : xsd ="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
Posted by beatsch | 2 Comments
Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:36 PM

How to make it better

This post is part of Issue 5’s answer The previous post demonstrated that we have to care about the messages we pass around. At the end, it’s always about the process of defining contracts. Let’s think about the way we’re defining
Posted by beatsch | 1 Comments
Sunday, April 11, 2004 9:46 PM

How to improve the messaging experience

This post is part of Issue 5’s answer Messaging means that you really care about messages. But looking at our example, do we really care about them? You might say yes, because we define a CLR message that acts as the argument type for our [WebMethod].
Posted by beatsch | 3 Comments
Saturday, April 10, 2004 11:46 PM

How to define the XPath expression

This post is part of Issue 5’s answer As a result of step 1 (How to define a <MessagePredicate>) we go the following template for our <MessagePredicate> < wsp:MessagePredicate wsp : Usage ="wsp:Required"> wsp:GetBody(.)/ here/goes/my/path
Posted by beatsch | 1 Comments
Saturday, April 10, 2004 10:36 PM

How to define a MessagePredicate

This post is part of Issue 5’s answer I’ve highlighted the relevant artifacts in the following excerpt of the WS-PolicyAssertions spec: The contents of the <MessagePredicate> element is an XPath 1.0 expression. The XPath expression is
Posted by beatsch | 3 Comments
More Posts Next page »
 
Page view tracker