Couple of issues I've observed. The first was that I had my service class had constructor dependencies that I'd not registered, this was obviously silly of me but when debugging all I kept getting was 502s when trying to contact my REST resources (programatically or using Fiddler) and it took me a while to work out the reason. I'm thus thinking that an exception server side might have been cool, to help point people to the source of the problem.
Secondly since I'm building REST resources I'm not interested in the service interface that I would be with normal WCF. What I mean is that I'd be happy to apply the [ServiceContract] and [OperationContract] directly to my service class and not have it implement an interface that was tagged up with these attributes. If I do create the interface then the client will never use it anyway (because if I go down that path I'm back to RPC). So I'm wondering if you believe adding better support for this use case is possible? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Users" 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/castle-project-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
