Author: Fernando D. Bozzo
Posted: 2015-06-06 07:55:27 Link
For years I've convinced that MSSoap Toolkit was indispensable on the
server side for answering Soap requests, and lately I've been searching on
the web about how to keep using existent web-services without it, replacing
it with something else.
Today I've uninstalled the soap toolkit from a virtual Windows Server 2003
SP2, and for my annoyance, the web-services keep working, so... Can
somebody explain what component is answering the soap requests and passing
the parameters to the components?
Thanks!
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAGQ_Juk0+yN_3e0oQazBFO9FHYufLd3BWV2XjHXCbpzUjd9MMg@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Fernando D. Bozzo
Posted: 2015-06-06 12:04:23 Link
I'm testing this, and found that when you configure COM+ to use Soap (I've
using this article:
http://www.kehm.de/henrik/blog/files/a5019da836d29c3cee972f5f62b5a8bd-19.html),
then every time I replace the component on COM+ console
(test_service.dll), a new dll is generated on a .net framework directory,
inside the Windows directory (test_serviceSoapLib.dll), then the .net
platform is receiving the Soap message and is calling my VFP9 MTDLL
component. Awesome!
So now I don't understand what part was playing the Soap Toolkit on the
server, if it is not necessary for the web-service to function, and don't
unserstand the DLL that .net generates automatically based on mine on VFP9.
Did anybody know that? It's something new to me, totally unexpected. Up to
now I've believed that for .net answering soap messages, then a .net
web-service was necessary.
Next week I'll try to reproduce this in a 2K12 virtual server (on which
Soap Toolkit can't be installed), and if this works, I will report back.
Regards.-
2015-06-06 14:55 GMT+02:00 Fernando D. Bozzo <fdbozzo@gmail.com>:
> For years I've convinced that MSSoap Toolkit was indispensable on the
> server side for answering Soap requests, and lately I've been searching on
> the web about how to keep using existent web-services without it, replacing
> it with something else.
>
> Today I've uninstalled the soap toolkit from a virtual Windows Server 2003
> SP2, and for my annoyance, the web-services keep working, so... Can
> somebody explain what component is answering the soap requests and passing
> the parameters to the components?
>
> Thanks!
>
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAGQ_Juk17VEbZfEd2F6PcbOf3Ojro2s=FgfP8Z_u68i2PuQvQw@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: AndyHC
Posted: 2015-06-07 09:59:17 Link
I recently discovered*, somewhat to my surprise, that vfp .exe's contain
a manifest.
Maybe that's something to do with it?
* see AVFP
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/55745C45.3070601@hawthorncottage.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Ted Roche
Posted: 2015-06-07 11:07:20 Link
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 10:59 AM, AndyHC <jarndice@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> * see AVFP
>
?
AVFP = Alien Versus F'in Predator?
AVFP = Anti-Visual-FoxPro?
AVFP = Association for the Vindication of FoxPro?
AVFP = Association for Veterinary Family Practice? (really, the
internet says so! and the dot-org)
AVFP =ALLGEMEINER VERMÖGENS UND FINANZ PARTNER (the dot-com)?
AVFP = Arizona Verde Fire Protection, Inc. (the dot-net)>?
Got me stumped. What's your acronym mean?
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CACW6n4sbriB0u8+bh6WOO_aFokdrQzozOguQ=+Te8HL=R5=wnA@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Alan Bourke
Posted: 2015-06-07 11:16:05 Link
Active VFP I would imagine.
http://activevfp.codeplex.com/
--
Alan Bourke
alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
On Sun, 7 Jun 2015, at 05:07 PM, Ted Roche wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 10:59 AM, AndyHC <jarndice@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > * see AVFP
> >
>
> ?
>
> AVFP = Alien Versus F'in Predator?
> AVFP = Anti-Visual-FoxPro?
> AVFP = Association for the Vindication of FoxPro?
> AVFP = Association for Veterinary Family Practice? (really, the
> internet says so! and the dot-org)
> AVFP =ALLGEMEINER VERMÖGENS UND FINANZ PARTNER (the dot-com)?
> AVFP = Arizona Verde Fire Protection, Inc. (the dot-net)>?
>
> Got me stumped. What's your acronym mean?
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/1433693765.3017334.289040857.6B842C49@webmail.messagingengine.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Fernando D. Bozzo
Posted: 2015-06-07 12:31:20 Link
It seems that not much people is using VFP services. There are answers
about Java and other languages, but not in VFP :-(
2015-06-06 19:04 GMT+02:00 Fernando D. Bozzo <fdbozzo@gmail.com>:
> I'm testing this, and found that when you configure COM+ to use Soap (I've
> using this article:
> http://www.kehm.de/henrik/blog/files/a5019da836d29c3cee972f5f62b5a8bd-19.html),
> then every time I replace the component on COM+ console
> (test_service.dll), a new dll is generated on a .net framework directory,
> inside the Windows directory (test_serviceSoapLib.dll), then the .net
> platform is receiving the Soap message and is calling my VFP9 MTDLL
> component. Awesome!
>
> So now I don't understand what part was playing the Soap Toolkit on the
> server, if it is not necessary for the web-service to function, and don't
> unserstand the DLL that .net generates automatically based on mine on VFP9.
>
> Did anybody know that? It's something new to me, totally unexpected. Up to
> now I've believed that for .net answering soap messages, then a .net
> web-service was necessary.
>
> Next week I'll try to reproduce this in a 2K12 virtual server (on which
> Soap Toolkit can't be installed), and if this works, I will report back.
>
>
> Regards.-
>
>
> 2015-06-06 14:55 GMT+02:00 Fernando D. Bozzo <fdbozzo@gmail.com>:
>
>> For years I've convinced that MSSoap Toolkit was indispensable on the
>> server side for answering Soap requests, and lately I've been searching on
>> the web about how to keep using existent web-services without it, replacing
>> it with something else.
>>
>> Today I've uninstalled the soap toolkit from a virtual Windows Server
>> 2003 SP2, and for my annoyance, the web-services keep working, so... Can
>> somebody explain what component is answering the soap requests and passing
>> the parameters to the components?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
>
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAGQ_JumFsBMu6NVQYSFqLpao5BLZwm16t1sghhaBZeEXGL6FzA@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Fernando D. Bozzo
Posted: 2015-06-10 06:25:26 Link
Ok, to continue with this matter, I can confirm that any COM+ component can
be automatically published as a web-service without the need of the Soap
Toolkit on Windows Server 2003.
The bad news is that apparently Microsoft decided to quit this good thing
to replace it with WCF. I hate them :_(
2015-06-06 19:04 GMT+02:00 Fernando D. Bozzo <fdbozzo@gmail.com>:
> I'm testing this, and found that when you configure COM+ to use Soap (I've
> using this article:
> http://www.kehm.de/henrik/blog/files/a5019da836d29c3cee972f5f62b5a8bd-19.html),
> then every time I replace the component on COM+ console
> (test_service.dll), a new dll is generated on a .net framework directory,
> inside the Windows directory (test_serviceSoapLib.dll), then the .net
> platform is receiving the Soap message and is calling my VFP9 MTDLL
> component. Awesome!
>
> So now I don't understand what part was playing the Soap Toolkit on the
> server, if it is not necessary for the web-service to function, and don't
> unserstand the DLL that .net generates automatically based on mine on VFP9.
>
> Did anybody know that? It's something new to me, totally unexpected. Up to
> now I've believed that for .net answering soap messages, then a .net
> web-service was necessary.
>
> Next week I'll try to reproduce this in a 2K12 virtual server (on which
> Soap Toolkit can't be installed), and if this works, I will report back.
>
>
> Regards.-
>
>
> 2015-06-06 14:55 GMT+02:00 Fernando D. Bozzo <fdbozzo@gmail.com>:
>
>> For years I've convinced that MSSoap Toolkit was indispensable on the
>> server side for answering Soap requests, and lately I've been searching on
>> the web about how to keep using existent web-services without it, replacing
>> it with something else.
>>
>> Today I've uninstalled the soap toolkit from a virtual Windows Server
>> 2003 SP2, and for my annoyance, the web-services keep working, so... Can
>> somebody explain what component is answering the soap requests and passing
>> the parameters to the components?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
>
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAGQ_JukDtDnOyEHF7tN13YVXPht0ZimxSRAMim3ZvUVfC77kFw@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Stephen Russell
Posted: 2015-06-10 09:53:47 Link
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Fernando D. Bozzo <fdbozzo@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Ok, to continue with this matter, I can confirm that any COM+ component can
> be automatically published as a web-service without the need of the Soap
> Toolkit on Windows Server 2003.
>
> The bad news is that apparently Microsoft decided to quit this good thing
> to replace it with WCF. I hate them :_(
>
>
>
> -------------
WCF is so much better from my experience in making them and publishing them
for use.
WCF does json very well.
WCF you have contract objects that other languages can put in easily, java
for sure as well as python.
--
Stephen Russell
Sr. Analyst
Ring Container Technology
Oakland TN
901.246-0159 cell
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAJidMYJpvxOh_2kjtre8Phynb2tUMVZSvNhx8mqCh2Rccn1OcA@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Fernando D. Bozzo
Posted: 2015-06-10 10:03:15 Link
Hi Stephen ;
The problem is that we have a lot of legacy code that can't be migrated
right now just because Microsoft thinks it is better the other way, when
the code is working OK.
This desicion is very hostile for legacy systems :-(
El 10/06/2015 16:53, "Stephen Russell" <srussell705@gmail.com> escribió:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Fernando D. Bozzo <fdbozzo@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, to continue with this matter, I can confirm that any COM+ component
> can
> > be automatically published as a web-service without the need of the Soap
> > Toolkit on Windows Server 2003.
> >
> > The bad news is that apparently Microsoft decided to quit this good thing
> > to replace it with WCF. I hate them :_(
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------
>
>
> WCF is so much better from my experience in making them and publishing them
> for use.
>
> WCF does json very well.
>
> WCF you have contract objects that other languages can put in easily, java
> for sure as well as python.
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen Russell
> Sr. Analyst
> Ring Container Technology
> Oakland TN
>
> 901.246-0159 cell
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAGQ_JukCkKZ6vmByCtZRNdiAmEovO+N+E+Tc1-ejousMsXqUhg@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Allen
Posted: 2015-06-10 10:17:44 Link
You can still use the old ways. You just can't use the latest .net
I think you need to pick .net 2.0
Al
-----Original Message-----
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Fernando D. Bozzo
Sent: 10 June 2015 17:03
To: profoxtech@leafe.com
Subject: Re: W2K3 - Serving web-services without soap toolkit?
Hi Stephen ;
The problem is that we have a lot of legacy code that can't be migrated
right now just because Microsoft thinks it is better the other way, when
the code is working OK.
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/005001d0a390$9adf7be0$d09e73a0$@com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.