By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,286 Members | 2,443 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,286 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Sharing custom types among web services-looking for a best way

P: n/a
I read a column on sharing types between web services at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...ce07162002.asp

Sharing types can be acheived, similar to what described here in this
article but little defferently, by defining these custom types in a seperate
assembly and importing that assembly at the top of the proxy generated and
then manullay deleting the redefined custom types in each proxy class.

But still this process even gets worse when there r any updates to any of
those web service implementations and have to update all relevent web
references. Is there any better way to do this automatically importing the
custom types assembly rather perform these manually steps?
Nov 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
1 Reply


P: n/a
Not today, but
you could automate it with a sed script or similar
and
in .NET v2.0, there is better support for this scenario.

Sorry, not the best news.
-D

"Kris" <Kr**@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B1**********************************@microsof t.com...
I read a column on sharing types between web services at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...ce07162002.asp

Sharing types can be acheived, similar to what described here in this
article but little defferently, by defining these custom types in a
seperate
assembly and importing that assembly at the top of the proxy generated and
then manullay deleting the redefined custom types in each proxy class.

But still this process even gets worse when there r any updates to any of
those web service implementations and have to update all relevent web
references. Is there any better way to do this automatically importing the
custom types assembly rather perform these manually steps?

Nov 23 '05 #2

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.