Thanks -- that's what I thought too. -----Original Message----- From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:11 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: cfinvoke vs cfhttp
Unless I'm crazy, web services were meant to be (or are mainly) called by HTTP requests - so I don't know why the use of cfhttp would be cause for alarm. ======================================================================= Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Hire Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo IM : cfjedimaster "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Painter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:04 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: cfinvoke vs cfhttp > > > Folks, > I've been helping a client get a proper response back > from a webservice written in vb.net and because of the way > the service was written, a particular method will not work > using cfinvoke. It is supposed to return an xml document, > but for some reason CFMX cannot handle it. > > As a workaround the service will also handle a http get or > post, so I've used cfhttp to use the same service and get the > xml that way. My client says it work temporarily, but is > not "stable enough" to go live. I am not sure why... > > So my question to all of you is there any truth to this? Why > would running a cfinvoke be any more stable than a cfhttp > call? It seems to be that basically it is soft of doing the > same thing behind the scenes.. My guess is that he has a > sense that cfhttp is unreliable due to a lot of the problems > it had back in the 4.x days. > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
