<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>WSE 3.0 Released on MSDN</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/mfussell/archive/2005/06/03/424990.aspx</link><description>Having spent the last few months getting WSE 3.0 built, it is now live on MSDN here . This includes new Messaging and Security Hands on Labs (HOLs) to get you started on the new features. Next week there will be a WSE 3.0 overview article on MSDN To provide</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: WSE 3.0 Released on MSDN</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/mfussell/archive/2005/06/03/424990.aspx#425021</link><pubDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2005 00:12:52 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:425021</guid><dc:creator>Sean McLellan</dc:creator><description>Don't get confused like I did -- this is indeed a CTP! ;)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Any timeframe for final? We looking around the fall window when the other extremely cool stuff is coming out? ;)</description></item><item><title>re: WSE 3.0 Released on MSDN</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/mfussell/archive/2005/06/03/424990.aspx#425056</link><pubDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2005 01:59:47 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:425056</guid><dc:creator>Mark Fussell</dc:creator><description>Yes, this is the first of monthly CTPs for WSE 3.0. The RTM release is scheduled to be .NET Framework 2.0/VS2005 RTM + 2-4 weeks. Yes, I have a relative ship date which means that its easy to say when!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;WSE 3.0 is the build to go with VS2005</description></item><item><title>re: WSE 3.0 Released on MSDN</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/mfussell/archive/2005/06/03/424990.aspx#427376</link><pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:49:55 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:427376</guid><dc:creator>Dan Mork</dc:creator><description>Mark,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Are &amp;lt;endpoint&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;operation&amp;gt; still supported somehow in the new policy file schema? The help page for &amp;lt;policy&amp;gt; (/policies/policy) refers to an &amp;lt;endpoint&amp;gt; element but the hyperlink is dead.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Cheers,&lt;br&gt;Dan</description></item><item><title>re: WSE 3.0 Released on MSDN</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/mfussell/archive/2005/06/03/424990.aspx#431418</link><pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:29:58 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:431418</guid><dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator><description>No, Endpoint and Operation (the ability to map in the policy file) are not supported in WSE 3.0. There has been a simplification of policy in WSE 3.0 and these were removed for the reasons of difficulty mapping messages to URLs and security exploits where the message could not have an default policy and this would still be processed through the WSE pipeline. Now you have to specific the policy name binding in code&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;- Mark</description></item><item><title>MTOM support in WSE 3.0 CTP</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/mfussell/archive/2005/06/03/424990.aspx#431579</link><pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:27:39 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:431579</guid><dc:creator>Davanum Srinivas' weblog</dc:creator><description>Mark asked for some feedback on WSE 3.0 CTP. Here's my 2 cents. Switching on MTOM behavior: #1: all base64Binary fields are eligible for MTOM-ming. #2: You can control the behavior of the client or server using the mtom element...</description></item><item><title>re: WSE 3.0 Released on MSDN</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/mfussell/archive/2005/06/03/424990.aspx#431585</link><pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:35:40 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:431585</guid><dc:creator>Davanum Srinivas</dc:creator><description>Mark,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;See &lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/archives/003213.html"&gt;http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/archives/003213.html&lt;/a&gt; for feedback on the MTOM support.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;-- dims</description></item><item><title>MTOM support in WSE 3.0 CTP</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/mfussell/archive/2005/06/03/424990.aspx#431588</link><pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:42:37 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:431588</guid><dc:creator>Davanum Srinivas' weblog</dc:creator><description>Mark asked for some feedback on WSE 3.0 CTP. Here's my 2 cents. Switching on MTOM behavior: #1: all base64Binary fields are eligible for MTOM-ming. #2: You can control the behavior of the client or server using the mtom element...</description></item><item><title>MTOM support in WSE 3.0 CTP</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/mfussell/archive/2005/06/03/424990.aspx#431607</link><pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:27:14 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:431607</guid><dc:creator>Davanum Srinivas' weblog</dc:creator><description>Mark asked for some feedback on WSE 3.0 CTP. Here's my 2 cents. Switching on MTOM behavior: #1: all base64Binary fields are eligible for MTOM-ming. #2: You can control the behavior of the client or server using the mtom element...</description></item><item><title>re: WSE 3.0 Released on MSDN</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/mfussell/archive/2005/06/03/424990.aspx#432266</link><pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:26:39 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:432266</guid><dc:creator>Dan Mork</dc:creator><description>Mark,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Re: Endpoint and Operation&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So if I need to define the policy binding in code how do I define operation-level policy when PolicyAttribute cannot target a method (can only target a class)? I'm primarily interested in AuthZ. Within a named policy will I be able to specify different claim requirements for each action URI?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Cheers,&lt;br&gt;Dan</description></item><item><title> Mark Fussell s WebLog WSE 3 0 Released on MSDN | Uniform Stores</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/mfussell/archive/2005/06/03/424990.aspx#9677552</link><pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:34:16 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9677552</guid><dc:creator> Mark Fussell s WebLog WSE 3 0 Released on MSDN | Uniform Stores</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;PingBack from &lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://uniformstores.info/story.php?id=15730"&gt;http://uniformstores.info/story.php?id=15730&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>