Well, I know for a fact that this service is called via http, but does that make cfinvoke inherently superior to using cfhttp?
Tim P. -----Original Message----- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 6:06 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: cfinvoke vs cfhttp That is actually a common misconception. Web services can be implemented using a variety of protocols whether they be lower level like TCP or UDP, or higher level like HTTP or SMTP; they could even be binary marshalling protocols like RMI or JMS. Further, Web services can make use of a variety of wrappers from SOAP to XML-RPC or even WDDX and MRNXMP (Matt's Really Neat XML Marshalling Protocol). Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ V: 415-577-8070 F: 415-341-8906 P: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 12:11 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. > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
