tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3070727340982558956.post7237518200074114578..comments2023-03-21T14:31:53.527+00:00Comments on Steal Focus: VendorsCallum Hibberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15087498670872017678noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3070727340982558956.post-21162837572685218102011-02-15T23:01:23.254+00:002011-02-15T23:01:23.254+00:00They use WCF...They use WCF...Callum Hibberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15087498670872017678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3070727340982558956.post-29328758776060154942011-02-12T21:50:26.434+00:002011-02-12T21:50:26.434+00:00Hi Callum
What technology does your "vendor&...Hi Callum<br /><br />What technology does your "vendor" use?<br /><br />One comment in their possible defense is that exception handling via wcf made life a hell of a lot easier than it was with asmx or wse2/3 on the microsoft stack.<br /><br />Before WCF you got a soap exception with only basic information where you would often end up string parsing the message or detail part of the soap fault which was really dirty. If you remember years ago on a certain north east project we implemented the very dirty but very useful technique of binary serializing an exception and then throwing it over the wire and deserializing it on the client so we could have strongly typed errors going over the wire.<br /><br />I find that with vendors who are not yet using WCF technology its not uncommon to use the response object to communicate error information.<br /><br />Having said that regardless of technology stack there is no excuse for throwing dirty errors like "object not set....." that is poor form <br /><br />Sounds like they need to upgrade their technology stack or look at exception interoperability to lower the cost of ownership for customers and give a better integration interface<br /><br />All the best<br />MikeUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14456476951483012292noreply@blogger.com