<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: WCF Bad Request</title>
	<atom:link href="http://underground.infovark.com/2008/04/09/wcf-bad-request/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://underground.infovark.com/2008/04/09/wcf-bad-request/</link>
	<description>The Infovark technology blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:06:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dean</title>
		<link>http://underground.infovark.com/2008/04/09/wcf-bad-request/comment-page-1/#comment-232</link>
		<dc:creator>Dean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:05:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://underground.infovark.com/?p=14#comment-232</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s funny, @trcull. You just highlighted a link to another post of mine! I found the answer to the problem described here, in April 2008, one month later, in May 2008. 

A commenter on that post confirmed that it seemed to be a glitch related to InstanceContextMode.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s funny, @trcull. You just highlighted a link to another post of mine! I found the answer to the problem described here, in April 2008, one month later, in May 2008. </p>
<p>A commenter on that post confirmed that it seemed to be a glitch related to InstanceContextMode.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: trcull</title>
		<link>http://underground.infovark.com/2008/04/09/wcf-bad-request/comment-page-1/#comment-229</link>
		<dc:creator>trcull</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:18:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://underground.infovark.com/?p=14#comment-229</guid>
		<description>Not sure if this helps your particular case, but this guy found that changing the InstanceContextMode made a similar problem go away...

http://underground.infovark.com/2008/05/21/wcf-instance-context/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not sure if this helps your particular case, but this guy found that changing the InstanceContextMode made a similar problem go away&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://underground.infovark.com/2008/05/21/wcf-instance-context/" rel="nofollow">http://underground.infovark.com/2008/05/21/wcf-instance-context/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WCF Instance Context &#171; Infovark Underground</title>
		<link>http://underground.infovark.com/2008/04/09/wcf-bad-request/comment-page-1/#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator>WCF Instance Context &#171; Infovark Underground</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 22:31:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://underground.infovark.com/?p=14#comment-24</guid>
		<description>[...] finally figured out the source of my bad request problem. Apparently the Windows Communication Foundation deals with exceptions differently [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] finally figured out the source of my bad request problem. Apparently the Windows Communication Foundation deals with exceptions differently [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon</title>
		<link>http://underground.infovark.com/2008/04/09/wcf-bad-request/comment-page-1/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:19:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://underground.infovark.com/?p=14#comment-4</guid>
		<description>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 :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice &#8212; I like how they assume that the server getting an unhandled exception is actually the fault of the client.</p>
<p>Most other environments manage to make do with 500 errors for that sort of thing <img src='http://underground.infovark.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gordon</title>
		<link>http://underground.infovark.com/2008/04/09/wcf-bad-request/comment-page-1/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Gordon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:34:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://underground.infovark.com/?p=14#comment-3</guid>
		<description>Grrr..

It seems like it&#039;s &quot;by design&quot; in the webhttp binding. 

Apparently you&#039;re supposed to override the webhttpbinding and implement your own custom error handler.

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2248288&amp;SiteID=1

As if we needed more proof that the webhttp binding was an afterthought to the ultra soapy WCF anyway... * sigh *</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Grrr..</p>
<p>It seems like it&#8217;s &#8220;by design&#8221; in the webhttp binding. </p>
<p>Apparently you&#8217;re supposed to override the webhttpbinding and implement your own custom error handler.</p>
<p><a href="http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2248288&#038;SiteID=1" rel="nofollow">http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2248288&#038;SiteID=1</a></p>
<p>As if we needed more proof that the webhttp binding was an afterthought to the ultra soapy WCF anyway&#8230; * sigh *</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

