Welcome to the Lounge

Keith Barrow3-Jul-15 2:40

Keith Barrow

3-Jul-15 2:40

I'm just reeling from the fact I'm considered at least partly trustworthy!

KeithBarrow.net[^] - It might not be very good, but at least it is free!

Nagy Vilmos3-Jul-15 2:43

Nagy Vilmos

3-Jul-15 2:43

As Old Ben said, "The Bull is strong in this one"

veni bibi saltavi

OriginalGriff3-Jul-15 4:15

OriginalGriff

3-Jul-15 4:15

Having seen your avatar, would you? Laugh | :laugh:

Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

Slacker0073-Jul-15 1:47

Slacker007

3-Jul-15 1:47

I thought is was as funny as a two headed goat in a cage, and just in the Nick of time.

Nagy Vilmos3-Jul-15 1:50

Nagy Vilmos

3-Jul-15 1:50

And you, like me, felt OG would enjoy it!

veni bibi saltavi

Do not escape reality : improve reality !

Rage3-Jul-15 4:50

Rage

3-Jul-15 4:50

The original content on imgur was even more cool. It is credited at the end of the article.

ServiceStack

NormDroid3-Jul-15 0:02

NormDroid

3-Jul-15 0:02

Has anybody been using ServiceStack? I've been playing around with it for a week now find it a good replacemment for WCF when implementing Restful services. I've got Auth working using OrmLiteAuthRepository and my SQL Server database. I've also got it working over SSL (With Self Signed Certs Smile | :)

).
For my client I have been using the AndroidServiceClient have a bit wrestling getting it to use Basic Authorization in the headers it works a treat.

Just wondered if anybody else is using ServiceStack.

Web | News | LinkedIn

User 101325463-Jul-15 0:21

3-Jul-15 0:21

I used it a few years ago, but it was being used for a massive API (to do every conceivable operation they could thing of) - it seemed a bit clunky at the time, but that could have been the way it had been implemented.

I tend to use Microsoft WebAPI these days for this kind of thing (it supports all the standard ASP.NET authentication mechanisms) - it's light on code and easy to write tests for Smile | :)

How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.

modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.

CDP18023-Jul-15 1:38

CDP1802

3-Jul-15 1:38

Brent Jenkins wrote:
WebAPI

Yuck! I want web methods and interfaces, not some esotheric URI mumbojumbo. Smile | :)

The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here

This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.

"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."

If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.

User 101325463-Jul-15 2:51

3-Jul-15 2:51

Doesn't WebAPI do the same thing as ServiceStack?

CDP1802 wrote:
some esotheric URI mumbojumbo

Not sure which bit of WebAPI you're referring to? You know that you just write normal public C# methods for WebAPI (with optional attributes, if you need them), right? For example:

public class MySimpleApiController : ApiController
{
    public string Hello()
    {
        return "Hello";
    }
}

Hey presto, I've got a service method on [whateverhost]/MySimpleApi/Hello - what's mumbojumbo about that? You can handle any object type, too, not just strings. Smile | :)

How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.

modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.

CDP18023-Jul-15 3:16

CDP1802

3-Jul-15 3:16

Yes, I know. But you call the service over a URI which contains the parameters, like

www.somehost:12345/#/SomeController/SomeParam/SomeOtherParam/

I also got a speech over the design of those URIs: Bla bla, resource at URI, bla bla bla, pluripotence (or was it idempotence?), bla bla bla, GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, bla bla bla...

Sorry, but I still prefer a simple interface like

SomeResultType WebMethod(Type1 Param1, Type2 Param2, ...);

User 101325463-Jul-15 3:39

3-Jul-15 3:39

Or you could just write..

[HttpPost]
public HelloResult Hello(SomeComplexObject incomingDto)
{
    var myHelloResult = SomeDatabaseOperationDto(incomingDto);
    return myHelloResult;
}

I think putting too many parameters in a URL isn't very sensible, whichever restful framework you're using. Personally, I'd go as far as saying that the only parameter I'd pass in in a URL would be a single ID for get or delete operations. For everything else, I'd post a DTO. That way it keeps your code simple and makes it easy to extend without breaking any existing apps or changing any URLs.

I've used quite a few restful frameworks - for me WebAPI is the simplest to use (i.e. less code and configuration, easy to write unit tests, easy authentication) - it's basically just ASP.NET MVC without the views.

How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.

modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.

Bing? More of a BONG really

CDP18023-Jul-15 5:23

CDP1802

3-Jul-15 5:23

Brent Jenkins wrote:
I think putting too many parameters in a URL isn't very sensible, whichever
restful framework you're using.

There you say something! That's exacty my problem with restful services. I usually use services to separate the data layer from the application logic or the application logic from the UI. This way I gain scalability, a proper separation of the layers and even a good modularisation for reuse. I'm looking for well defined interfaces, not for various resources at a URI.

Phil J Pearson2-Jul-15 23:38

Phil J Pearson

2-Jul-15 23:38

If you Google for "edge" Microsoft Edge (the new browser) is the third link.
If you Bing for "edge" Microsoft Edge does not appear on the first page, not even in the list of related searches. Laugh | :laugh:

Phil

The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of the author, especially if you find them impolite, inaccurate or inflammatory.

Nagy Vilmos3-Jul-15 0:01

Nagy Vilmos

3-Jul-15 0:01

Same with Yahoo[^] [yes it still exists]

veni bibi saltavi

F-ES Sitecore3-Jul-15 0:24

F-ES Sitecore

3-Jul-15 0:24

I've thought similar about MSDN. When you search for .net class names etc you'd think it would weight MSDN higher than it does. Normally google puts the MSDN pages right at the top, but on Bing they're sometimes nowhere to be seen.

Keith Barrow3-Jul-15 0:29

Keith Barrow

3-Jul-15 0:29

On the up side they can't be accused of partiality in favour of their own products Laugh | :laugh:

KeithBarrow.net[^] - It might not be very good, but at least it is free!

User 101325463-Jul-15 0:45