I believe there are some good examples of using WCF Rest out there. All the WCF Facility will do is help simplify the configuration of those clients and services. Is that the area you need help in?
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Gabriel Mancini de Campos < [email protected]> wrote: > > if u can, please up this sample... > i realy need start in this subject. > > thanks > > > On 20 mar, 12:31, Craig Neuwirt <[email protected]> wrote: > > No real example. Just some unit tests to test with > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Gabriel Mancini de Campos < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Craig do you have this example ? > > > > > WCF+WINDSOR+RESTFULL ??? > > > > > On 3 fev, 12:20, Craig Neuwirt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Colin Jack <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I have added the ability to open service hosts eagerly > > > > > > - wcfFacility.Services.OpenServiceHostsEagerly() for all services > > > > - WcfServiceModel.OpenEagerly() for a specific service > > > > > > When you do this, the service hosts will be opened immediately upon > > > service > > > > registration regardless of whether dependencies are satisfied. You > will > > > > then > > > > receive a FaultException<ExceptionDetail> if you communicate with a > > > service > > > > that has unresolved dependencies. The exception details will list > the > > > > unsatissfied > > > > dependencies (make sure you have ServiceDebugBehavior with details > turned > > > > on). > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > Can you share with me a REST example using this > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
