Comments on: WCF Bad Request http://underground.infovark.com/2008/04/09/wcf-bad-request/ Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:08:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: WCF Instance Context « Infovark Underground http://underground.infovark.com/2008/04/09/wcf-bad-request/#comment-24 WCF Instance Context « Infovark Underground Wed, 21 May 2008 22:31:24 +0000 http://underground.infovark.com/?p=14#comment-24 [...] finally figured out the source of my bad request problem. Apparently the Windows Communication Foundation deals with exceptions differently [...] [...] finally figured out the source of my bad request problem. Apparently the Windows Communication Foundation deals with exceptions differently [...]

]]> By: Simon http://underground.infovark.com/2008/04/09/wcf-bad-request/#comment-4 Simon Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:19:18 +0000 http://underground.infovark.com/?p=14#comment-4 Nice -- I like how they assume that the server getting an unhandled exception is actually the fault of the client. Most other environments manage to make do with 500 errors for that sort of thing :) Nice — I like how they assume that the server getting an unhandled exception is actually the fault of the client.

Most other environments manage to make do with 500 errors for that sort of thing :)

]]> By: Gordon http://underground.infovark.com/2008/04/09/wcf-bad-request/#comment-3 Gordon Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:34:11 +0000 http://underground.infovark.com/?p=14#comment-3 Grrr.. It seems like it's "by design" in the webhttp binding. Apparently you're supposed to override the webhttpbinding and implement your own custom error handler. http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2248288&SiteID=1 As if we needed more proof that the webhttp binding was an afterthought to the ultra soapy WCF anyway... * sigh * Grrr..

It seems like it’s “by design” in the webhttp binding.

Apparently you’re supposed to override the webhttpbinding and implement your own custom error handler.

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2248288&SiteID=1

As if we needed more proof that the webhttp binding was an afterthought to the ultra soapy WCF anyway… * sigh *

]]>