Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. WCF

WCF

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
csharpwcfquestion
27 Posts 13 Posters 7 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • R Rama Krishna Vavilala

    I guess FF and Safari might be very similar. Though I have not gone into the details yet.

    David Stone wrote:

    get CPhog working on Safari.

    I think the biggest challenge will be to get the user scripts running. I saw a few greasemonkey clones but did not manage to get them working.

    You have, what I would term, a very formal turn of phrase not seen in these isles since the old King passed from this world to the next. martin_hughes on VDK

    D Offline
    D Offline
    David Stone
    wrote on last edited by
    #21

    Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:

    I guess FF and Safari might be very similar. Though I have not gone into the details yet.

    Not really in terms of their rendering engines. Firefox uses Gecko. Safari uses WebKit, which shares its roots with KHTML. They render HTML and CSS very differently.

    Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:

    I saw a few greasemonkey clones but did not manage to get them working.

    Yeah. But like I said, there's not a whole lot of Greasemonkey specific stuff we use. Mostly it's the WHATWG globalStorage working draft spec, JS 1.7 stuff, and all the "Hey, it works in Firefox, so it's okay" CSS and HTML we inject into the page. You fix those, you can have CPhog on Safari. ;)

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • R realJSOP

      Is it just me, or does does WCF seem clunky, overly complicated, and clumsy?

      "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
      -----
      "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

      M Offline
      M Offline
      MrPlankton
      wrote on last edited by
      #22

      Just reading up on WCF after your post. Wondering to myself if there is a way for perimeter DMZ web GUI's to talk to web services/databases inside the fire wall. Curious, since WCF seems to rely in part on MSMQ which works only intra-domain and DMZ web servers of course are not part of the inside-the-firewall domain... need to read up some more, thanks for bringing up WCF.

      MrPlankton

      P 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • M MrPlankton

        Just reading up on WCF after your post. Wondering to myself if there is a way for perimeter DMZ web GUI's to talk to web services/databases inside the fire wall. Curious, since WCF seems to rely in part on MSMQ which works only intra-domain and DMZ web servers of course are not part of the inside-the-firewall domain... need to read up some more, thanks for bringing up WCF.

        MrPlankton

        P Offline
        P Offline
        Pete OHanlon
        wrote on last edited by
        #23

        MSMQ is only one of the bindings (a damn handy one granted). Other bindings include peer to peer, pipes, SOAP and so on. Effectively you can think of WCF as following ABC: A = Address - the address of the service you are communicating with B = Binding - the binding for the service (see above) C = Contract - the contract that the service exposes for you to communicate with

        Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.

        My blog | My articles

        M 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • P Pete OHanlon

          MSMQ is only one of the bindings (a damn handy one granted). Other bindings include peer to peer, pipes, SOAP and so on. Effectively you can think of WCF as following ABC: A = Address - the address of the service you are communicating with B = Binding - the binding for the service (see above) C = Contract - the contract that the service exposes for you to communicate with

          Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.

          My blog | My articles

          M Offline
          M Offline
          MrPlankton
          wrote on last edited by
          #24

          Good to know, thanks.

          MrPlankton

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • P Pete OHanlon

            Nope. I like it - I actually find it a better fit for remoting purposes, please it's relatively easy to secure. The biggest problem is a lack of decent articles on it. I started writing one on using it to communicate with Amazon S3, but packed it in when I was spending more and more time clunking round the Amazon API, rather than demonstrating "cool" ways of doing things in WCF. It may be time to revisit this, especially as Visual Studio 2008 makes creating and consuming WCF apps much easier.

            Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.

            My blog | My articles

            M Offline
            M Offline
            Mycroft Holmes
            wrote on last edited by
            #25

            Most difficult thing - deploying the bloody thing (typo in the config file :-O)

            Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH

            P 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • M Mycroft Holmes

              Most difficult thing - deploying the bloody thing (typo in the config file :-O)

              Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH

              P Offline
              P Offline
              Pete OHanlon
              wrote on last edited by
              #26

              Ah yes. The 50 different references you have to update because you decided that Service1 is a really naff name for a service.

              Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.

              My blog | My articles

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • R realJSOP

                Is it just me, or does does WCF seem clunky, overly complicated, and clumsy?

                "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
                -----
                "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

                N Offline
                N Offline
                NormDroid
                wrote on last edited by
                #27

                Yep.

                www.software-kinetics.co.uk

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                Reply
                • Reply as topic
                Log in to reply
                • Oldest to Newest
                • Newest to Oldest
                • Most Votes


                • Login

                • Don't have an account? Register

                • Login or register to search.
                • First post
                  Last post
                0
                • Categories
                • Recent
                • Tags
                • Popular
                • World
                • Users
                • Groups