just when I finally understood the difference between Msxml2.XMLHTTP and Msxml2.ServerXMLHTTP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/290761
XMLHTTP is designed for client applications and relies on URLMon, which is built upon Microsoft Win32 Internet (WinInet). ServerXMLHTTP is designed for server applications and relies on a new HTTP client stack, WinHTTP. ServerXMLHTTP offers reliability and security and is server-safe. For more information, see the MSXML Software Development Kit (SDK) documentation.
suddenly I find WinHttp.WinHttpRequest...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa382925(VS.85).aspx
Microsoft Windows HTTP Services (WinHTTP) provides developers with a server-supported, high-level interface to the HTTP/1.1 Internet protocol. WinHTTP is designed to be used primarily in server-based scenarios by server applications that communicate with HTTP servers.
so, how is this different from Msxml2.ServerXMLHTTP
(well, the implicit question is which one should I use...)
Msxml2.XMLHTTP and Msxml2.ServerXMLHTTP are two components share the similar interface for fetching XML files over HTTP protocal. The former is built upon URLMon, which relies on WinINet. The later is built upon WinHTTP, which is a server friendly replacement for WinINet. To put it simple - ServerXMLHTTP = XML + WinHTTP.
Similarly a recent application has found me asking similar questions, however after performing some rudimentary research I have simplified as follows:
WinHTTP :: high-level interface to the HTTP/1.1 Internet protocol
ServerXMLHTTP :: ServerXMLHTTP is recommended for server applications and XMLHTTP is recommended for client applications
Depends what you are doing and how much control you require.
Explicitly denied elements of ServerXMLHTTP often cause some developers annoyances as it requires a little more 'work' to implement effectively. The helping-hand with the explicitly allowed WinHTTP and XMLHTTP objects is not there with ServerXMLHTTP.
If your solution requires elements of Enterprise up-scaling, out-scaling then perhaps choose appropriately.
We were using both of these components in classic ASP web applications. There were called a LOT of times every minute, from server to server asp server-side page calling another asp or aspx server-side page).
Server.CreateObject("WinHttp.WinHttpRequest.5.1")
Server.CreateObject("MSXML2.ServerXMLHTTP.6.0")
Our experience is that WinHttpRequest is stable, the other is not.
We had to remove all our createobject to serverxmlhttp and replace them by winhttprequest, because after a while, it was taking lot of memory, was freezing, or the iis application pool did not respond or became very slow.
I don't know the detailed specifications of each components, but I can assure you that, from our experience, "MSXML2.ServerXMLHTTP.6.0" is the one to use.
Related
I've recently come across the term api and from what I have known api is a interface that connects/integrates between two programs and it can run on any platform.
And again from java we know that it turns it's source code into bytecodes and this bytecode can run on any platforms since it is platform independent.
So my question is does api work/run just like as a bytecode to provide multi-platform functionality
And if not is there any similarities between them or thier process? If please anyone could explain it to me it would be a great help. Thanks in advance.
API does not work like bytecode
Actually, API and Bytecodes are a completely different thing
For Bytecode,
let's try to understand it in java. java compiler compiles a java program then produce bytecode. Then the bytecode is interpreted by java interpreter in different machines and generate different executable files as the requirement of different machines and os.
this is how java maintains it's multi-platform property
Now, API,
API stands for Application Programming Interface. An API is a software intermediary that allows two applications to talk to each other. In other words, an API is the messenger that delivers your request to the provider that you’re requesting it from and then delivers the response back to you.
there are many types of API's out there
but I think you are referring to Web API and it's multi-platform functionality and how it works.
A Web API is an application programming interface for either a web server or a web browser
A Web API works as server-client architecture.
client request to server through HTTP protocol, server responds to client through HTTP protocol
actually whole api service is provided through HTTP protocol, and this api service can provide to any device using HTTP protocol
this has nothing to do with bytecode
This is really basic.I want to implement a RESTful web API.
Now I know you can write custom applications and scripts to integrate with the API.
What I need to know:
In what languages can you write this API? C#, Java, php?
When building/programming a program that implements this API, is this the client and the software that issued the API the server? (eg. Dropbox would be the server and the custom app that integrates with the Dropbox API is the Client?
Thank you.
A REST API can be built in any programming language that allows you to handle HTTP requests (or can be attached to a Web server as a handler for requests). The two methods I've been using:
Stand-alone Windows service implementing a REST service using WCF
WEB server Apache + PHP
You are correct about the terminology. A program consuming a service is called the client, a program providing a service is called the server (while actually in the PHP approach, Apache would be the server as it is taking the request and having the script handle it).
Additional nitpicking: JQuery is not a language, but a framework to help you use some JavaScript features more easily.
On your comment Recap:
Close :-) The Client transfers JSON/XML/whatever to a server using HTTP requests. The Client can be written in any language that can perform HTTP requests.
On the server side, there needs to be some application that handles the HTTP requests (service), also written in any language, as long as it "speaks" HTTP.
The API is the definition of which operations are possible, for example, adding user accounts, getting the current time, etc. (this is what you define - what do you want your service to do?).
The JSON/XML/whatever that you transfer is the workload, the parameters for the API call. For example, if you want to add a new user to your system, the workload could be the new user name, the real name, the eMail address and some other details about the user. If the API call returns the current server time, you might not need any parameters at all, but you get back JSON/XML/whatever from the service.
The actual call being made is determined by the URL you call. For example, the URL for adding a user could be http://localhost/myrestservice/adduser and you'd perform a POST request against that URL with the required workload. For the time example, the URL could be http://localhost/myrestservice/getservertime and you'd perform a GET request against that URL.
I suggest that you read about how REST services actually work before you start, as I see some question marks on your face ;-)
Short:
API = available operations (=> URLs)
Parameters to API calls = JSON/XML/Plain Text/whatever
Client = calls the service through HTTP
Service = handles the calls, replies to client in response to HTTP requests
If you are a php programmer and familiar with Codeigniter framework then go here : Working with RESTful Services in CodeIgniter.
visit also : Rest Tutorial
First of all, you should begin with learning what is a RESTful API.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer
http://www.restapitutorial.com/
http://rest.elkstein.org/
In what languages can you write this API? C#, Java, php, jQuery?
You can write an API in any language. What can help is the framework you'd be using. JQuery is not a language, but a framework for integrating Javascript application in every web browser, so it won't help.
I'd advice you to use a microframework to write your first RESTful API, because they usually are easy to use and help focus on the important (bottle/flask in python, express in javascript, silex in php, spark in java or nina in C#)
When building/programming a program that implements this API, is this the client and the software that issued the API the server? (eg. Dropbox would be the server and the custom app that integrates with the Dropbox API is the Client?
You're right, the server is providing you the service, hence the API. The client is user to that API, and implementing it into something useful.
As most of the people stated already, you can do this in just about any language.
Might I suggest that you look into NodeJS? If so, check out Restify: http://mcavage.github.io/node-restify/
There's a nice community behind NodeJS and I think it's quite open to newcomers. Just try not to pick up bad habits from JavaScript pitfalls. If you're new to programming, I'd suggest reading some intro book.
good luck!
I have a third-party Java web service listening at three SOAP 1.1 WSDL endpoints. One of the endpoints is used to initiate the session and perform some high-level tasks, and the other endpoints are for subject-specific tasks reusing that initial authentication.
I'm building a C# WCF application to talk to the service, and I'd like to share the session cookie among the three client objects.
What's the VS2010 'best practices' way of sharing this cookie?
If this article is still the best answer, I can go with it, but I would appreciate some additional feedback, especially if .NET 4 introduced a simplification that I'm not finding on-line.
http://megakemp.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/managing-shared-cookies-in-wcf/
I can pretty easily create the first client and retain the session (new BasicHttpBinding myBinding; myBinding.AllowCookies = true), but I couldn't find an elegant way of saving off the cookie from the Connect response and reusing for the two auxiliary clients.
Any insights are appreciated.
I should note that I'm aware of CookieContainer and using Add Web Reference instead of Add Service Reference. That method is labeled as 'legacy' in most posts I've read, and I'd prefer to stay current...or as current as possible when working with SOAP 1.1.
The mentioned article is still valid. You have to use OperationContextScope and access message properties to get protocol specific data. This complexity is based on the fact that WCF architecture is protocol independent whereas ASMX architecture was HTTP protocol dependent.
It is true that ASMX (WebReference) is legacy technology but it is still present in .NET framework so if you know that you will never need nothing more the basic SOAP messaging without any advanced WS-* standard you can still use it and make your life little bit simple. Once you need anything more you can still refactor your code and use WCF with mentioned code to work with cookies.
Previously we have developed against the ReportServer/ReportService2005.asmx web service.
To access these web services, the MSDN documentation suggests the old .NET 2.0 based web service reference technologies. But we specifically chose to use the WCF (System.ServiceModel) technology to access this service. Regardless of whether you use .NET 2.0 WSDL or WCF Service References, in both cases proxy classes are generated to wrap the web service methods. Noteworthy, the proxy classes themselves will have different (but functionally equal) implementations. Ref: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms155134.aspx
We have had great success with the WCF based service proxy against the ReportService2005 (for SSRS 2008). Recently, we were asked to do the same but to use the new ReportService2010 web service (for SQL Server 2008 R2) as the old ReportService2005.asmx/ReportService2006.asmx services have been deprecated. Ref: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms154052.aspx
For context: The ReportService2006.asmx services are intended for using SSRS in a Sharepoint Integrated mode - presumably this has mostly to do with security (authentication/authorisation).
In the most simplest terms the new ReportService2010.asmx services are an almalgamation of the old ReportService2005.asmx and ReportService2006.asmx services, and you are now able to use the ReportService2010.asmx services for either "Native" or "SharePoint Integrated" scanarios.
After all that, my question is what else is different at an API level?
PS: I also found that SSRS2008R2 no longer supports Anonymous usage
For example I noticed that in the old services used to specify that the WCF Client security mode was set for "TransportCredentialOnly" using NTLM and passing your Username from the ClientCredentials. In contrast, the new 2010 services has the WCF Client security mode now set to "None" and the message still contains the UserName, but without any transport security (like NTLM).
OK, so I'm starting to guess that the act of integrating the 2005/2006 services (which likely used different authentication mechanisms) results in this change we see.
This though, has a direct impact on the API code in that previously you would be specifying the credential for the Client proxy as follows:
proxy.ClientCredentials.ClientCredential = yourCredential;
This no longer seems relevant. I also noticed that many of the proxy service methods now expect a TrustedUserHeader instance as the first parameter. For example:
proxy.CreateFolder( yourTrustedUserHeader, folder , ... );
From some documentation it appears to be implemented as a SOAP Header. This TrustedUserHeader object contains properties like UserName, UserToken, AnyAttr, etc. but I'm not sure what the proper usage pattern is. Unfortunately the MSDN documentation is equally useless in that I could not find clear guidance on this issue, nor do the MSDN documentaion use WCF ServiceModel to access the services.
Can anyone please provide some insight as to the appropriate way to now use the new Reporting Services 2010 interface?
Should I no longer set the "ClientCredentials" property, and instead create and instance of the "TrustedUserHeader"
Many thanks!
Jaans
I'm new to WCF RESTFull services developpment and I'm looking for some usefull information and your experience feedback about using webHttpBinding compared to the new WCF Web API http://wcf.codeplex.com/.
What I'm looking for is to know about the shortcomings of webHttpBinding and therefore why to use the new Web api and especially what problems the new API resolves.
If you could point me to some blog posts comparing both of them or just talking about the problems when using webHttpBinding I would appreciate. Thank you in advance.
Main shortcomings I would say is that the webhttpbinding makes it difficult to handle HTTP specific concerns. It works great if all you are doing is passing an object over HTTP that is serialized into XML or JSON and which may be transported over different formats.
HTTP is much more than a simple transport protocol for XML and JSON, it is an application layer protocol with rich semantics. Web API is specifically targetting folks that want to build systems over HTTP that fully levergage HTTP's richness.
Web API embraces that HTTP Resources can have a multitude of representations based on the needs of different clients. One end of the spectrum could be a dumb browser that just talks to a service using a Form url encoded post and a GET, while the other end could be a more rich client that uses Atom/OData or a hypermedia based media type.
Web API embraces that there are other HTTP specific concerns like conneg, etags, etc which allow better leveraging intermediary web servers.
Web API is designed with more testability in mind, thus you can address working with HTTP messages or other concerns in a more testable manner.
Web API has a more simplified configuration story.
You can read more about the rationale here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/endpoint/archive/2010/11/01/wcf-web-apis-http-your-way.aspx
The most significant difference for me is the change in programming model. You no longer write 'services' which expose 'operations' bound to HTTP idioms (GET, POST etc.). With Web APIs you create 'resources' (POCOs) with which your clients can interact.
Web APIs seem to be better at handling various custom media types (like PNG images for example).
Last but not least, Web APIs are far better suited for automated testing. For instance, you no longer have to use static context classes to access HTTP concepts such as response codes. You use POCO request and response classes which can be easily instantiated in automated tests using old-style new() operator.
I agree with Ladislav that Web APIs are just a preview now and building application on top of it can be both risky and forbidden by the means of license agreement (but I haven't checked that).
Have you considered #serialseb's OpenRasta? It is stable and offers very nice programming model for building RESTful services.
The Web API is something like possible future of REST development in WCF. It is just preview which can significantly change before final release (probably in next version of .NET framework). So if you want to build production REST service you should use webHttpBinding.
Available information about Web Api can be found for example on .NET Connected Framework team's blog and on the site you mentioned. It is simplification and extension of current REST API.
Web API provides a REST-friendly HTTP based API. Web API uses the patterns of MVC and is going to be very familiar to ASP.NET MVC developers. Web API can leverage the capabilities of HTTP as an application layer protocol, returning resources in multiple representations (XML, JSON, HTML etc.) according the the client's request headers.
On the other hand WCF webHttpBinding uses the patterns of WCF, and is going to appeal more to the WCF developer - ServiceContracts, OperationContracts, comprehensive (or overweight, depending how you look at it, config file), ability to self-host outside of IIS.
One of the things I like about Web API is the ability to use dynamic types to escape the constraints of the type system. I also like the default exception behavior in Web API - contrast WCF webHttpBinding where, by default, exceptions bubble up as HTTP 500 + an HTML payload (yuk!).
Its nice to have the choice between two excellent technologies here. I wouldn't describe Web API as 'newer' or 'better' that WCF, as this implies its a replacement technology and that WCF webHttpBinding is legacy, which I don't believe is true.
I chose to use WCF webHttpBinding recently to expose a JSON API for an existing WCF SOAP service. I believe it was a good choice because it fitted that style of that existing solution and minimized the amount of change required.