On 03/09/2010 07:54 PM, Cliff Jansen (Interop Systems Inc) wrote:
The encoder is basically a map-message encoder, which would be more
generically applicable. My view would be to try and make all the
custom channel stuff as generic as possible.
Sorry, I should be more specific. When I say
in the WCF C++ client that
would affect such work are being addressed as quickly as possible.
Cliff
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 4:11 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: QMF and .NET
On 03/05/2010 08:56 AM, Cliff Jansen (Interop
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:37 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: QMF and .NET
On 03/08/2010 09:32 PM, Cliff Jansen (Interop Systems Inc) wrote:
Hi Gordon,
I'd suggest we don't focus exclusively on 'QMF' here
I agree
On 03/05/2010 08:56 AM, Cliff Jansen (Interop Systems Inc) wrote:
Hi Carl,
I've taken a look at QMFv2 and hope I understand it well enough to
give useful feedback.
On the whole, I think your characterization of the options is correct.
However, I would suggest you should not think of WCF
: QMF and .NET
On 03/08/2010 07:11 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 03/05/2010 08:56 AM, Cliff Jansen (Interop Systems Inc) wrote:
Hi Carl,
I've taken a look at QMFv2 and hope I understand it well enough to
give useful feedback.
On the whole, I think your characterization of the options is correct
by
pointing out that some serious outages in the WCF C++ client that
would affect such work are being addressed as quickly as possible.
Cliff
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 4:11 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: QMF and .NET
Hi Carl,
I've taken a look at QMFv2 and hope I understand it well enough to
give useful feedback.
On the whole, I think your characterization of the options is correct.
However, I would suggest you should not think of WCF merely as a SOAPy
WSDL provider, but more as a layered architecture. WCF
