Actually the auto generation of the asmx may be a way I could go, I'll let
you know if I am able too. Not sure how it would fly with the QA structure
"Dino Chiesa [Microsoft]" <dinoch@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:u4bmPLDYEHA.3016@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> yes it makes sense.
>
> I don't know of an architecture that allows this.
>
> You can do it at a different level, of course.
> "Dropping in" a single ASMX with a single method, you will get this
dynamic
> behavior.
> No recompiling, at least not explicitly.
> But the new ASMX will have its own WSDL .
>
> I can imagine setting up a separate FileSystemWatcher app, and when it
sees
> a new DLL in a specific directory, it starts up, examines each DLL in the
> plugin directory, and generates a webmethod for the "method" exposed in
> that DLL. Then the agent app generates a new ASMX and drops it into a web
> directory. Basically, just-in-time generation of ASMX based on the list
> of DLLs you drop in.
>
> So maybe there are ways to get what you want but probably not
automatically
> .
> -D
>
> "Wayne" <wsepega@NoLandSpamstar.com> wrote in message
> news:uUY1SbqXEHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > I will take a look at the link you provided. I hope the following may be
a
> > bit more descritpive to what I want.
> >
> > Today I have a web service with the following methods
> >
> > GetUserList
> > GetInspectionList
> > GetUser
> > GetInspection
> >
> > Some new requirement comes up and now I need to get a Document from the
> > database, so I would like to have a web service with the following
> >
> > GetUserList
> > GetInspectionList
> > GetUser
> > GetInspection
> > GetDocument
> >
> > But what I don't want to do is have to recompile the web service to add
> the
> > GetDocument, I would like the ability to add the GetDocument method
simply
> > by dropping a new ClassAssembly in the directory where the main ASPX and
> DLL
> > exists.
> >
> > Hope this makes more sense. I don't want to do it genericly in the
resepct
> > that the web service has an ExecuteMethod that accepts one param and
from
> > that param figures out it has to run GetUserList or run
GetInspectionList.
> I
> > want the new methods to just show up as part of the available methods
once
> I
> > drop in a new Class Lib.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> > "Dino Chiesa [Microsoft]" <dinoch@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:OFZFJGmXEHA.2908@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > You don't want to allow changing of WSDL, by definition. If you
change
> > the
> > > WSDL then you need to recompile, and you just told us you don't want
> that.
> > > So, no changing the WSDL.
> > >
> > > Instead what you seem to want is a WSDL that is extensible. The same
> WSDL
> > > can carry requests and responses of different types. This is a
> different
> > > thing.
> > >
> > > This is possible to do, using xsd:any (wildcard) types in the message
> > > schema.
> > >
> > > But can you give us all a more concrete example of how you want to
> extend
> > > the webservice? What is the nature of the changes the webservice
needs
> > to
> > > support?
> > >
> > > (you can leave out the details of the DB Access, and the GUI app, and
> > > anything else that is orthogonal to the WSDL and webservice design)
> > >
> > > Or Maybe just check this out:
> > >
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnservice/html/service04162003.asp > > > ...which talks about a generic webservice that can dynamically
validate
> > > incoming requests. Serialization and de-serialization of requests and
> > > responses is a bit more manual, but it may give you the flexibility
you
> > > desire.
> > >
> > > -D
> >
> >
>
>