For future reference, I have found a useful alternative.  It seems to work well 
within its limitations, limitations that won't be a problem for most 
applications:

http://www.pocketsoap.com/pocketHTTP/

--- In [email protected], "michiman56" <rriemer...@...> wrote:
>
> I get erratic results when using an instance of "Msxml2.Xmlhttp" using the 
> standalone emulator image for WM 6.1 Professional from the WM 6 SDK.
> 
> Sometimes on calling the .send method it works fine, while other times it 
> pauses and then I get a "VBScript failure - line xx, char 0 no further 
> information available from scripting engine."
> 
> The consistent variable is the URL used.  Some resources are retrieved (GET 
> request) just fine while others fail as described.  Those that work seem to 
> have an XML processing instruction at the head, even when the rest of the 
> content is HTML source text:
> 
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> 
> Using almost identical code in NSB/Desktop I do not get the XML processing 
> directive prepended, plus it works for all URLs of interest.  Same when using 
> a desktop WSH script or VB6 program.
> 
> Trying to create this object as progId "Msxml2.XMLHTTP.3.0" on CE/WM fails, 
> unable to create it.  This tells me the WM OS image in the emulator doesn't 
> have MSXML 3.0 (despite Microsoft's claims that it should be there starting 
> with CE 4.x - but you never know with CE builds).
> 
> So I seem to be working with an MSXML 2.x version on the CE/WM emulated 
> device. Clerly this has a few "problems" being used as a general purpose 
> HTTPRequest object, unlike those in Desktop Windows.
> 
> 
> So does anybody know of another wrapper object on WinInet (e.g. a CE WinInet 
> control) or a 3rd party substitute?
> 
> So far I see 2 possible alternatives: call the WinInet API myself, take a 
> stab at trying to use the "WinHTTP.WinHTTPRequest.5" (or maybe 
> "WinHTTP.WinHTTPRequest.5.1") object.
> 
> WinHTTP 5.1 has known "issues" on Windows Desktop so I'm not sure I'd want to 
> use the CE version if present anyway.  The biggest issue is that when using 
> HTTP authentication on a POST or PUT request WinHTTP ends up doing the whole 
> request twice (first w/o authenticating, which fails, then a second time 
> authenticating).  Sending anything large means sending it twice, and I'd 
> prefer to avoid that.
>


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"nsb-ce" 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/nsb-ce?hl=en.

Reply via email to