For those that hand code...

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Mike Barnard, Mar 8, 2008.

  1. Mike Barnard

    Mike Barnard Guest

    Hi.

    What sort of system do you have in place to reduce the amount of
    repeat coding you do in a single site when creating new pages?

    What do I mean? Well, Dreamweaver etc will keep a template for you I
    understand, so if you want a new page in your site just call it up and
    add your data. But if hand coding what do *you* do? Design a template,
    keep a content free copy I suppose and copy a renamed version then add
    the new content. BUT, then you have to update the menus on all of the
    already created pages to match. Again and again maybe if the site is
    growing.

    I suppose the easiest way for that is to cut n paste the menu, but in
    my case it will still need tweaking on each page to have the current
    page showing by use of the 'name the page body' system. (That doesn't
    read right, but work with me.)

    Is there an easier system, or is that just it? (Or am I being blind
    again?)
     
    Mike Barnard, Mar 8, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike Barnard wrote:

    > What sort of system do you have in place to reduce the amount of
    > repeat coding you do in a single site when creating new pages?


    Look into writing with server-side includes. PHP is rather easy for
    this, and (most?) all Linux web servers support it.

    > What do I mean? Well, Dreamweaver etc will keep a template for you I
    > understand, so if you want a new page in your site just call it up
    > and add your data. But if hand coding what do *you* do? Design a
    > template, keep a content free copy I suppose and copy a renamed
    > version then add the new content.


    Keeping a content-free template is a great idea.
    <div id="content">
    "<!-- add content here -->
    </div>

    Open it, and resave with the name of the new file.

    > BUT, then you have to update the menus on all of the already created
    > pages to match. Again and again maybe if the site is growing.


    Not if your menu is a separate, single file you "include". Same goes for
    the banner file, the footer file, and so forth. Even the doctype and
    <head> block if you want to.

    > I suppose the easiest way for that is to cut n paste the menu, but in
    > my case it will still need tweaking on each page


    ...only if you don't "include" the common parts.

    > to have the current page showing by use of the 'name the page body'
    > system. (That doesn't read right, but work with me.)


    You're right .. hard to parse that.

    > Is there an easier system, or is that just it? (Or am I being blind
    > again?)


    You're a Windows user? Look at the Crimson Editor. Besides being an
    excellent color-coded editor, it's a great project manager. Don't worry
    about its age.
    http://crimsoneditor.com/

    And if you don't have a development web server installed yet, see:
    http://www.wampserver.com/en/ .. the Winders version of LAMP.

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 8, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Mike Barnard
    <> writing in
    news:eek::

    > Hi.
    >
    > What sort of system do you have in place to reduce the amount of
    > repeat coding you do in a single site when creating new pages?
    >
    > What do I mean? Well, Dreamweaver etc will keep a template for you I
    > understand, so if you want a new page in your site just call it up and
    > add your data. But if hand coding what do *you* do? Design a template,
    > keep a content free copy I suppose and copy a renamed version then add
    > the new content. BUT, then you have to update the menus on all of the
    > already created pages to match. Again and again maybe if the site is
    > growing.
    >
    > I suppose the easiest way for that is to cut n paste the menu, but in
    > my case it will still need tweaking on each page to have the current
    > page showing by use of the 'name the page body' system. (That doesn't
    > read right, but work with me.)
    >
    > Is there an easier system, or is that just it? (Or am I being blind
    > again?)
    >
    >


    1. Server side includes make making templates a breeze
    2. I use HTML-Kit that can let you save content as a template or
    snippet, eg:
    <?php
    $thispage = ""; //page name to be used in the header
    $thisurl = ""; //the url goes in a function to activate thispage
    class on the menu.

    include "linkrel.php";
    // linkrel.php has the doctype, external stylesheet, external
    //javascript, connection to the db, and also a separate page with
    //funtions.
    ?>
    </head>
    <body>
    <?php include "h1_inc.php";?>
    <?php include "nav_inc.php";?>
    <div id="content">
    </div>
    <?php include "footer_inc.php";?>

    I also have a lot of snippets that I use all the time, and I reuse
    server side code as much as possible. I am a big fan of arrays.


    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
     
    Adrienne Boswell, Mar 8, 2008
    #3
  4. Mike Barnard wrote:

    > Hi.
    >
    > What sort of system do you have in place to reduce the amount of
    > repeat coding you do in a single site when creating new pages?
    >
    > What do I mean? Well, Dreamweaver etc will keep a template for you I
    > understand, so if you want a new page in your site just call it up and
    > add your data. But if hand coding what do *you* do? Design a template,
    > keep a content free copy I suppose and copy a renamed version then add
    > the new content. BUT, then you have to update the menus on all of the
    > already created pages to match. Again and again maybe if the site is
    > growing.


    When I want a new page, I just pull up a current page and save it with a
    new name. My headers and footers, containing navigation and other
    stuff, and my <head> elements and doctype declaration are the same on
    all pages -- they're served by PHP. So all I have to do is change the
    <title> and replace the old content (everything between the
    top-of-document and bottom-of-document calls to PHP).

    For an extemely simple example:

    http://blinkynet.net/sharks/monstroso.html

    Everything above the first <hr> and below the "Back to Sharks" link is the
    same on every page (again, provided by PHP), so all I had to do do make
    this page was pull up another, save with new name, and change the <title>,
    the <h1>, the image and the caption.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
     
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 8, 2008
    #4
  5. Mike Barnard

    Jeff Guest

    Mike Barnard wrote:
    > Hi.
    >
    > What sort of system do you have in place to reduce the amount of
    > repeat coding you do in a single site when creating new pages?
    >
    > What do I mean? Well, Dreamweaver etc will keep a template for you I
    > understand, so if you want a new page in your site just call it up and
    > add your data. But if hand coding what do *you* do? Design a template,
    > keep a content free copy I suppose and copy a renamed version then add
    > the new content. BUT, then you have to update the menus on all of the
    > already created pages to match. Again and again maybe if the site is
    > growing.
    >
    > I suppose the easiest way for that is to cut n paste the menu, but in
    > my case it will still need tweaking on each page to have the current
    > page showing by use of the 'name the page body' system. (That doesn't
    > read right, but work with me.)


    Well templating is a big step toward this. Most in this group like to do
    the editing client side and upload the new page.

    There's also a sizeable (not exclusive to the above) group that use
    includes or PHP. My preference is to have pages that are static,
    actually be just that, plain .html pages.

    No matter.

    Maintaining navigation is important, very important. Some of the
    techniques can be similar if you use a CMS, as I do, or if you use some
    kind of include.

    Now, just about every site I work on has a different navigation
    system. Many even have top nav *and* context/location driven side
    navigation. Obviously if you add a page in the site you want it to
    appear, where appropriate, in the navigation elsewhere in the site.

    Now, if you are using includes, I don't know how you would go about
    this, other than to either hand edit the includes (or page) or have some
    database that has the site structure.

    If you have some kind of CMS, you already have the site structure
    stored. When you save a page, your CMS knows where the page is in the
    site architecture. It knows what section or sub section it is in,
    whether you want it in the navigation and how you want the pages
    ordered. Obviously it also knows the current page and it can use that
    for marking where you are. That particular technique also works with
    includes as the calling page is one of the environment variables the
    script knows.

    *Some* of the client side editors have some system of managing
    navigation. I believe Crimson Editor has been mentioned and Adobe has
    Contribute.

    Jeff

    >
    > Is there an easier system, or is that just it? (Or am I being blind
    > again?)
    >
     
    Jeff, Mar 8, 2008
    #5
  6. Mike Barnard

    C A Upsdell Guest

    Mike Barnard wrote:
    > Hi.
    >
    > What sort of system do you have in place to reduce the amount of
    > repeat coding you do in a single site when creating new pages?
    >
    > What do I mean? Well, Dreamweaver etc will keep a template for you I
    > understand, so if you want a new page in your site just call it up and
    > add your data. But if hand coding what do *you* do? Design a template,
    > keep a content free copy I suppose and copy a renamed version then add
    > the new content. BUT, then you have to update the menus on all of the
    > already created pages to match. Again and again maybe if the site is
    > growing.


    I hand code. The answer is: global search and replace.
     
    C A Upsdell, Mar 8, 2008
    #6
  7. Mike Barnard

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 08 Mar 2008, Jeff wrote:

    > No matter.
    >
    > Maintaining navigation is important, very important. Some of the
    > techniques can be similar if you use a CMS, as I do, or if you use some
    > kind of include.


    A web page is like a lover. If you treat it as "one of the crowd", you're
    not likely to get as many warm fuzzies as you'd get by employing "that
    special touch".

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.com/
    Great sights and sounds
     
    Neredbojias, Mar 8, 2008
    #7
  8. Mike Barnard

    Bergamot Guest

    Mike Barnard wrote:
    >
    > What sort of system do you have in place to reduce the amount of
    > repeat coding you do in a single site when creating new pages?


    Custom scripts, a preprocessor, and Homesite, which has fantastic search
    and replace capabilities.

    > I suppose the easiest way for that is to cut n paste the menu,


    A preprocessor is easier.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Mar 9, 2008
    #8
  9. Mike Barnard

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Bergamot <> wrote:

    > Mike Barnard wrote:
    > >
    > > What sort of system do you have in place to reduce the amount of
    > > repeat coding you do in a single site when creating new pages?

    >
    > Custom scripts, a preprocessor, and Homesite, which has fantastic search
    > and replace capabilities.
    >
    > > I suppose the easiest way for that is to cut n paste the menu,

    >
    > A preprocessor is easier.


    If you have a good Search and Replace, if you don't want to get a
    home server or preprocessor, if you use includes, you can
    quickly get a "full-code" set of hml pages by the following
    method:


    First duplicate the whole website folder and call it
    whatever_fullcode. This folders html files are the ones you will
    convert.

    Suppose the includes have this style:

    <?php include
    ($_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'].'/domain/includes/banner.inc'); ?>


    You cut and paste this into the Find field of your Search and
    Replace box of your text editor.

    You then copy the mark up you have for the banner in your
    includes file and paste this in the Replace field.

    Then you order your S & R to replace all instances of the first
    with the second.

    Having done the banner, the nav include is maybe next. Easy. You
    just replace the word banner from the first field with nav
    (assuming that the navigation markup is called "nav.inc"). And
    paste in the navigation markup from your includes file.

    And so on.

    You can have a full code (no includes) website set of htmls in no
    time.

    Quicker still is to make your own grep pattern and do the whole
    show in one hit of the Find and Replace. You would have to be
    careful on tooling up for this. But once done, you would have the
    pattern forever.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 9, 2008
    #9
  10. dorayme wrote:

    > You can have a full code (no includes) website set of htmls in no
    > time.


    That'll all work, but then you have to upload your entire site to the
    host for one new page and a menu update. <g>

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 9, 2008
    #10
  11. Mike Barnard

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <lHJAj.291643$>,
    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > You can have a full code (no includes) website set of htmls in no
    > > time.

    >
    > That'll all work, but then you have to upload your entire site to the
    > host for one new page and a menu update. <g>


    I was assuming - don't ask me why, I just assume things, I am
    like that, bold and dashing - that OP had no personal offline
    server with PHP, but did have the facilities, as is almost
    universal, with a remote commercial one. There then does arise
    the issue for some people of how to look at their own work in
    browsers when offline. And I was proposing a way to do this, a
    way that is very satisfying when you get the hang of it because
    it is so stupid it is amazing when it works quickly.

    I have been doing more or less exactly this for the last week in
    the following situation. I have a winbox and my offline
    connection to *it* is bust because I have still not got around to
    following Jonathan's advice to me to open the thing, pull the
    modem out and refit it and then restart (thread of 20 years ago),
    and there are issues with the server on it at the moment. So what
    to do to see my efforts made on a Mac? I do exactly what I said
    in my last post. Then USB stick it over to the winbox to be
    appalled at what I see of my hard work on a new site in IE6.

    The OP should do two things, get a server with PHP going on his
    machine, and get an external host (assuming he does not host his
    own website) with PHP too. Then there is no need to fiddle about.
    The includes will be all the things you have previously mentioned
    and so on...

    My post was a little foray into the ways of fiddling about... <g>

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 9, 2008
    #11
  12. dorayme wrote:

    > I was assuming - don't ask me why, ...


    Oh I know that. :)

    > My post was a little foray into the ways of fiddling about... <g>


    Foray away! The more the merrier...

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 9, 2008
    #12
  13. Mike Barnard

    Bergamot Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >
    > That'll all work, but then you have to upload your entire site to the
    > host for one new page and a menu update. <g>


    When the whole site is less than 10 pages, it's no big deal.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Mar 9, 2008
    #13
  14. Mike Barnard

    Jeff Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    >> You can have a full code (no includes) website set of htmls in no
    >> time.

    >
    > That'll all work, but then you have to upload your entire site to the
    > host for one new page and a menu update. <g>
    >


    And, of course, it does not answer the more typical situation when
    the navigation is not the same in all sections of the site as Dorayme's
    fix makes the nav the same everywhere. If you are in the widgets section
    you won't want the foobar subnav. That is, after all, what the op was
    asking. That and the OP asked about marking the current page in the nav.
    That (page marking), BTW, is possible with a little javascript. It won't
    work, of course, if js is off, but so what.

    If you have a site beyond a handful of pages, *I* think some
    automation, whether a CMS or a preprocessor, but *something* to keep
    track and automate maintenance. That, of course, is the beauty of a CMS
    in that you can add and move pages around without having to remember (or
    do) all the changes you need to make. I think you guys take pride (and
    like to charge) in doing that though!

    Jeff
     
    Jeff, Mar 10, 2008
    #14
  15. Mike Barnard

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > > dorayme wrote:
    > >
    > >> You can have a full code (no includes) website set of htmls in no
    > >> time.

    > >
    > > That'll all work, but then you have to upload your entire site to the
    > > host for one new page and a menu update. <g>
    > >

    >
    > And, of course, it does not answer the more typical situation when
    > the navigation is not the same in all sections of the site as Dorayme's
    > fix makes the nav the same everywhere.


    You are right Jeff, it is a bit of PITA when it gets more
    complex.

    But, you know, sometimes, in a big site, it is better to be very
    simple in the navigation system. To keep one main navigation
    pretty constant throughout. (You can always add little flourishes
    and highlightings via php, eg. for current page).

    And you can have local menus for some sections. All these things
    (not the php highlight aids) are easy to use S&R for.

    I'll say it again: best is get a home server with PHP, host with
    a good host server with PHP. Bob and Carol, Ted and Alice would
    then easily be your uncles and aunts.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 10, 2008
    #15
  16. Mike Barnard

    Jeff Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>> dorayme wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> You can have a full code (no includes) website set of htmls in no
    >>>> time.
    >>> That'll all work, but then you have to upload your entire site to the
    >>> host for one new page and a menu update. <g>
    >>>

    >> And, of course, it does not answer the more typical situation when
    >> the navigation is not the same in all sections of the site as Dorayme's
    >> fix makes the nav the same everywhere.

    >
    > You are right Jeff, it is a bit of PITA when it gets more
    > complex.
    >
    > But, you know, sometimes, in a big site, it is better to be very
    > simple in the navigation system. To keep one main navigation
    > pretty constant throughout. (You can always add little flourishes
    > and highlightings via php, eg. for current page).
    >
    > And you can have local menus for some sections.


    That is really common. And you would search and replace only those pages
    in that section. How would you do that? It looks to me that you would in
    effect edit each page individually as you still have to mark the current
    page. Or you would need a lot of PHP includes.

    I'm not saying that's wrong, just curious how you manage a site in the
    25 page range. Personally I've found that managing a site that size and
    larger requires keeping careful track of many things, and for the work I
    see that is about a median size site. (Actually, I'm not sure what my
    median size is, I just checked what I thought was a small site and it
    had 37 pages!) Now, I've gone the CMS route and I'm just wondering how
    you do this. I consider myself to be a very small player.

    All these things
    > (not the php highlight aids) are easy to use S&R for.
    >
    > I'll say it again: best is get a home server with PHP,



    I'm mixed up here. Why do you need a home server with PHP?

    Jeff

    host with
    > a good host server with PHP. Bob and Carol, Ted and Alice would
    > then easily be your uncles and aunts.
    >
     
    Jeff, Mar 10, 2008
    #16
  17. Jeff wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >> I'll say it again: best is get a home server with PHP,

    >
    > I'm mixed up here. Why do you need a home server with PHP?


    For the same reason you have a development environment for any kind of
    software you write. You create and test, fix bugs, and test again,
    before you upload/distribute to the public.

    Of course, if you write only in plain, pure HTML, a browser alone is all
    that is necessary.

    Look up LAMP and/or WAMP (depending on your operating system).

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 10, 2008
    #17
  18. Mike Barnard

    Jeff Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > Jeff wrote:
    >
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>> I'll say it again: best is get a home server with PHP,

    >> I'm mixed up here. Why do you need a home server with PHP?

    >
    > For the same reason you have a development environment for any kind of
    > software you write. You create and test, fix bugs, and test again,
    > before you upload/distribute to the public.


    This has always seemed like a duplication of effort with the added
    inconvenience that I develop largely on a windows box for a target LAMP
    box. The environment variables are different and windows often needs
    some of these explicitly set while the *nix box won't. That means I
    would need two slightly different sets of files, one for local and one
    for the web.

    Now, lets say you have a database, that's very common... Now you have
    to sync up the data online with that on the local box.

    I don't see any real problems with just putting it on the web. Every
    time someone posts a problem the first thing requested is a URL!
    Certainly the client will need to see it on the web and not on your
    local box. If the domain is already under use, just put it under an IP.

    It seems to me that many readers here take pride in expending more
    effort than is needed. There's a whole thread trashing me when I
    suggested using a CMS to maintain a site, everyone preferred to download
    the files, edit them, and reupload.

    Jeff

    >
    > Of course, if you write only in plain, pure HTML, a browser alone is all
    > that is necessary.
    >
    > Look up LAMP and/or WAMP (depending on your operating system).
    >
     
    Jeff, Mar 10, 2008
    #18
  19. Jeff wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> Jeff wrote:
    >>
    >>> dorayme wrote:
    >>>> I'll say it again: best is get a home server with PHP,
    >>> I'm mixed up here. Why do you need a home server with PHP?

    >>
    >> For the same reason you have a development environment for any kind
    >> of software you write. You create and test, fix bugs, and test
    >> again, before you upload/distribute to the public.

    >
    > This has always seemed like a duplication of effort with the added
    > inconvenience that I develop largely on a windows box for a target
    > LAMP box. The environment variables are different and windows often
    > needs some of these explicitly set while the *nix box won't. That
    > means I would need two slightly different sets of files, one for
    > local and one for the web.


    There is very little different between LAMP and WAMP. MySQL login is
    one, so I use a bit of PHP (if/else) in my common functions to handle
    that.

    > Now, lets say you have a database, that's very common... Now you have
    > to sync up the data online with that on the local box.


    Quite common; I use databases with all my sites. I either have a test
    suite of data on the development PC, or I backup and load the web
    version occasionally. It's no biggie, as I backup the web host data
    regularly in any case.

    > I don't see any real problems with just putting it on the web. Every
    > time someone posts a problem the first thing requested is a URL!
    > Certainly the client will need to see it on the web and not on your
    > local box. If the domain is already under use, just put it under an
    > IP.


    Those ways will of course work, but I would rather test before
    deployment.

    > It seems to me that many readers here take pride in expending more
    > effort than is needed. There's a whole thread trashing me when I
    > suggested using a CMS to maintain a site, everyone preferred to
    > download the files, edit them, and reupload.


    Download/edit/reupload? Don't you keep a copy of the current source on
    your machine? What do you do if your host goes belly-up?

    <snipped the rest you didn't reply to>

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 10, 2008
    #19
  20. Mike Barnard

    Bergamot Guest

    Jeff wrote:
    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> Jeff wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm mixed up here. Why do you need a home server with PHP?

    >>
    >> For the same reason you have a development environment for any kind of
    >> software you write.

    >
    > This has always seemed like a duplication of effort with the added
    > inconvenience that I develop largely on a windows box for a target LAMP


    That's irrelevant. I develop on Windows for a target LAMP and can't
    imagine *not* having a local server. I've been running WAMP for years.

    > The environment variables are different and windows often needs
    > some of these explicitly set while the *nix box won't.


    I rarely have any trouble setting up the local server to mimic the
    remote server. Sometimes there is some kind of config file that is
    server specific, but most times the same settings can be used on both,
    including database usernames and passwords. I'm curious - what are you
    doing that uses different env variables?

    > Now, lets say you have a database, that's very common... Now you have
    > to sync up the data online with that on the local box.


    Why? If the user is maintaining the remote data, which appears to be
    true in your case, all you need locally is sufficient sampling of the
    data to do adequate testing. If you really do need to mirror the data,
    too, export the whole database from one and import it into the other.
    Unless it's a huge site, this only takes a few seconds on either server.

    I've only ever had to do that when the site is first set up, either
    setting it up locally from an existing remote site, or setting up the
    initial remote site from my local test site. After that, there's never
    been a need for full database mirroring.

    > I don't see any real problems with just putting it on the web.


    I see the potential for huge problems. YMMV, and I guess it does.

    > There's a whole thread trashing me when I
    > suggested using a CMS to maintain a site, everyone preferred to download
    > the files, edit them, and reupload.


    You assume the user always maintains a site themselves? Believe me, that
    is not the case.

    Very few of my clients take any of that responsibility. Most are small
    businesses that don't have either the time, desire, or adequate skill to
    do it themselves. They are happy to pay me to do it for them. All of
    their site's files are maintained on my local server and changes are
    uploaded whenever needed.

    A handful do run CMS's, but there's no need to mirror their databases
    locally. Those clients do their own database backups, so there's no need
    for me to do it. I've got all the scripts locally, so between the 2 of
    us we can restore the site on any LAMP server if need be.

    It's easy peasy, really. And it's a lot less risky than messing with a
    live client site.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Mar 10, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. BinnuChowdary
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    572
    Swanand Mokashi
    May 1, 2006
  2. BinnuChowdary
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    442
    BinnuChowdary
    May 2, 2006
  3. BinnuChowdary
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    624
    =?UTF-8?B?R8O2cmFuIEFuZGVyc3Nvbg==?=
    May 2, 2006
  4. Guest
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    667
    Nicola Musatti
    Jul 9, 2008
  5. Sudipto Sen

    Hand code a WSDL for plain XML based conversation

    Sudipto Sen, Feb 24, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net Web Services
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    154
    Sudipto Sen
    Feb 24, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page