Is wcf a viable REST solution? It prevents you from using some special characters like # so requesting tag/c# does not work. is there a work around, is this by design?
"It is" means "it is by design" ? Really? Can you 'splain why?
Cheeso
2009-07-02 11:59:48
@Cheeso: To the extent it is designed not to be tethered to SOAP then it is by design. As you know, he overarching theme is to be a unified communications framework and as such, the particulars of the RPC architecture should not be relevant. It just so happens that over the years, much of the effort surrounding WCF has been SOAP related.
JP Alioto
2009-07-02 21:57:33
+2
A:
Please see this post: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/440744/special-characters-in-wcf-rest-atom-feed
Randz
2009-07-02 06:18:24
A:
REST has nothing to do with URI naming conventions. So if you want arbitrary text in your URIs, you can at the very least just use a urlsafe base64 encoding for anything.
Wahnfrieden
2009-07-20 22:11:59
A:
I think its going to be difficult to find a place for REST given how WCF was designed. Remember, one of WCF's major strengths comes indirectly from its use of SOAP. It allows web services to be accessible on any transport, HTTP, TCP, MSMQ, etc., through simple configuration. REST has explicit dependence on HTTP, making it transport-dependent. So REST web services would be a little bit at odds with that transport flexibility designed into the core of WCF.
I do think that WCF needs to find a place for REST web services, as it is a form of communication. However, its going to be difficult to carve out a place in the framework that makes working with REST a "natural" process; and will that negate the work that went in to making WCF what it is today?
Travis Heseman
2009-09-22 16:11:22