No, as <cfinvoke> using the same Java class for doing HTTP as <cfhttp>.
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: Tim Painter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:54 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: cfinvoke vs cfhttp > > 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
