On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Ryan Riley <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Paul McCallick <[email protected]>wrote: > >> This came in on InfoQ today: >> >> http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/01/WCF-HTTP >> >> <http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/01/WCF-HTTP>It's very timely for us, as >> we're planning to abandon WCF in favor of straight ASP.NET MVC. I don't >> see the value add of WCF when all you're trying to do is expose a REST >> interface. Does anyone see the point in this? >> > > I think a few links are sufficient: > > http://deadprogrammersociety.blogspot.com/2007/10/sinatra-ruby-web-framework-and-why-it.html > http://groups.google.com/group/net-http-abstractions > http://rubylearning.com/blog/2009/03/20/interview-ryan-tomayko-on-sinatra/ > > Why do I reference Sinatra? It's the oldest of the new form of web > frameworks coming out, and the WCF Web APIs align more tightly with it. > > MVC is certainly a valid approach. However, if you want to do REST and not > just REST-ish, MVC doesn't quite cut the mustard, at least not without some > hacks. > > Ryan > In case I didn't state it clearly enough, MVC is great. I love it so much more than WebForms. However, I prefer the simplest thing that can work, and that isn't MVC. If you want something else for services and don't want to wait on WCF, you might check out OpenRasta <http://openrasta.com/>. It's very similar to what the WCF Web APIs will achieve, and Sebastien is actively working on v3. Ryan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Seattle area Alt.Net" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/altnetseattle?hl=en.
