>>Well, to me, at first, as soon as a Web Service is not returning a regular XML string, it falls in non standard.

I'll agree with you there!

Wow, it sounds like a real nightmare, Michel!! =( Good luck with it!

~~Bonnie



>>So, you can still get at your ByRef parameters with no problem in VFP. That was what I wasn't sure about, because I wasn't sure why you were having problems with the WebService you're trying to use. I guess they're just doing something non-standard, eh?
>
>Well, to me, at first, as soon as a Web Service is not returning a regular XML string, it falls in non standard. We faced a lot of complications with that one. We have to use high level because of the byref approach of some variables thus it made it more complicated to incorporate the SOAP header. We finally breakthrough on that one a few days ago. I was not able to visually developed the SOAP header class but I was able to hook the non visual class into the Web Service object which controls most of it. There is also HTTPS authentication and, new to me, was the necessary to use the ConnectorProperty WinHTTPAuthScheme property. And that that the need to add, at high level, the file attachment, which I have no idea how I am going to be able to resolve that one. I can pass a file attachment when using a low level approach but I don't know how to deal with that when using an high level approach. And, of course, in regards to that, we receive also a file attached in another method. Add to
>that regular password change maintenance, additional security, missing doc and problems to get support.
>
>But, they say there's light at the end of the tunnel. So, we'll see. It's just that the client wants its delivery. The problem is that the WS is not developed by the client so we have another loop to include in the development for getting our support.
>
>>BTW, sometimes in .NET, you still have to specify that a parameter is passed by reference. If it's something that gets instantiated in the called method, you lose the pointer to it in the calling method unless you've specifically passed it by reference (there was a thread about that here somewhere).
>
>Ok