installed on the client machine. The .NET runs without problems on XP, but I
"Brandon" <Brandon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:60DC7408-68F5-4693-94BE-85EA96FFF5C9@microsoft.com...
> Pablo,
> Was I correct in my previous post in that using the app updater block
> would
> require the client to be on XP? What exactly would be the system
> requirements on the client side?
>
> "Pablo Cibraro [MVP]" wrote:
>
>> Hi Brandon,
>>
>> SOAP attachments (MTOM) is the right technology for scenarios where you
>> have
>> to download or upload files with a web service. (Due to the optmization
>> on
>> the network traffic)
>> However, and unfortunately, it does not work with the SOAP toolkit. (This
>> tool kit was developed a couple of years ago and it does not support any
>> WS-* protocol).
>> If your solution to download the updates is working, I do not see a real
>> reason to change it. If you still want to use MTOM, you might develop
>> some
>> kind of download manager in .NET using that technology, and this manager
>> will be responsible to update your VB6 applications. (Microsoft already
>> provides two solutions for this, Click Once or the Application Updater in
>> Enterprise Library).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pablo Cibraro
>>
http://weblogs.asp.net/cibrax >>
>>
>> "Brandon" <Brandon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:63985B11-CF89-4808-BE24-7612E71B5453@microsoft.com...
>> > Here's my situation.
>> > I've got an existing VB6 app that is consuming several web services
>> > written
>> > in VB2005 (via the SOAP toolkit 3). I need the app to be able to
>> > download
>> > updates. Currently the VB6 app calls a web service to determine
>> > whether
>> > an
>> > update is available.
>> >
>> > Initially I was thinking I would implement this via SOAP
>> > attachments--my
>> > understanding is that I would have to use WSE on the server side (the
>> > side
>> > written in .NET)--will I be able to make that work since the client
>> > side
>> > (VB6) is using the SOAP toolkit? If so, I could really use some
>> > example
>> > code.
>> >
>> > Is there a better way to implement this?
>>
>>
>>