I have recently had to get rid of an oData abstraction as it lacked WS-Security. WCF using SOAP Vs REST is significantly more difficult, and why most developers go for RESTful web services frameworks like oData or WebAPI as the entry level is easier and the programming paradigms are familiar.
What I did find out is that you have to write a heck of a lot more code using oData and the HTTP protocol (I am pretty sure WebAPI will be no different). The choice seems to be, either you write a lot more code and have a large code-base headache to maintain, or the headaches arise from the complexity of using SOAP over HTTP but you have far smaller code-base to maintain.
@bondsbw: REST getting attention has been around a while, I remember the Pablo Castro videos here on Channel 9 when WCF data services was coming out. SOAP is a proven technology used by the industry at large, the oData aspect of WCF is unproven, or, shall I say, has been proven to have limitations far beyond pursuing with continual development.
The lesson you should learn from this is to never ever commit to a technology that is not proven, especially when dealing with the data access layer of a software system in a commercial environment.
Microsoft develop in an agile manner nowadays, so there is far much more shiny new stuff, but as a consequence, you will get projects like this.
No matter how far you've gone down the wrong road, turn back! (Turkish proverb)
hmmmmm..... Seriously, what the frack. Seriously. Go back and read your post in this quote 10 thousand time because it is just plain ridiculous. If you still cannot understand how unreasonable you sound, show this thread to you coworkers. I will not teach you common sense on this one.
I recommend you PM Bass, he has some HTML that he runs in this site to ignore my posts, as you seem to be getting rather upset.
My co-workers have watched the WinRT videos and understand why the runtime manages the suspension of apps and think your suggestion ludicrous.
FWIW I don't think it unreasonable to question why someone who champions stardock or whatever the unsupported tool is you use in numerous threads (saying that is what makes Windows usable if I remember correctly) is complaining that they want to terminate an metro app
Anyway, take a chill pill, have a cigar or whatever, feel free to ignore my posts as flame-wars are pointless when there is intransigence.
How can I spread lies if you don't tell me everything, as you have just drip fed information? If I cannot figure out your complaint, maybe you expect Microsoft to read your mind, in my experience, problems are fixed through dialogue, not through trying to have error free posts in forums, my intention was to assist through clarification, though the more I post, the more I fear you will add myopia to the discussion so lets call it a day.
@AndyC: As I have just noted above magicalclick is using unsupported software that allows him to run metro apps on the desktop, and he wants to kill metro processes like usual executables, this is the nub of the issue, and why it is incredulous to everyone why he is complaining.
On Connect this would be closed as "By Design", with a recommendation that he use the usual channels to ask that stardock functionality is added to Windows in the next release and that terminating processes is high up on the list.
OK @ magicalclick, I have had a little think about this.
You presently are using stardock or one of the unsupported 3 party applications in Windows 8, that run metro applications as desktop ones, then complaining that the operating system is broken. Your angle of attack is both disingenuous and unfair, and unlikely to produce the results you require.
It would be more helpful if you could be vocal about Microsoft looking at adding the functionality that stardock (or whatever software it is) has, than complaining that something that has been designed a certain way is broken.
I frequently have to deal with customers where you have several meetings and take down the requirements for the software they want (all written down), then when the software is delivered, and they get a chance to play with it, they say it is broken, because they can now see that they missed a few things (this is usually a Project Manager), and now they cover their own back by blaming the development process or developers for getting things wrong.
The best thing to do is to always take notes, as people soon forget, but finger pointing means you end up delivering a broken piece of software and everyone loses out, the customer gets a turd, and you also get one to put on your CV. You just have to take the hit in such instances, and work day and night to correct things, your attitude to Windows 8 quite frankly is unhelpful, it is best to be clear about what you would like adding and hope that people listen, but you are being unfair in using unsupported software, then saying the system is broken when it is not, as a developer you will know that the first version of any software is usually the hardest, but if people are positive and constructive, any defects or development oversights can be dealt with and everyone gets the software they want.
Just my own 2 Pence.
That will never happen and it is by design.
You should care about the details, if you watch the following videos please
This all stems from the article from Paul Thurrot, which surprisingly states Windows 8 is tanking harder than Microsoft is comfortable discussing in public, and the latest release, Windows 8.1, which is a substantial and free upgrade with major improvements over the original release, is in use on less than 25 million PCs at the moment. That's a disaster
I think the main problem is that people just don't know how to update their machines, and the current way of updating is far easier for end users. 25 million is an unbelievable metric (I have updated 3 or 4 machines, so that figure is likely in single digits).
I still believe that the fix for all this is a simple one. Invest in the desktop OS, and supporting technologies like Silverlight (certainly far much more used than Windows 8.1), and have a separate tablet and phone OS. Use the same code base if you need to, but that is a technical detail people don't care about.
Google exist to make money by selling advertisements, AI is now so advanced, they need basic information from you so they can exercise their will on you, so expect companies to aggressively try to extract as much information from you, henceforth and forthwith.
Only someone with an Avatar such as yours would say Google is not ubiquitous, it is like a Metallica fan saying Michael Jackson is not ubiquitous and that he is crap (but he is, say some 9'ers ).
Personally, Microsoft have been the most ethical IT company thus far, their platform gives me hope, Apple are pure avarice, and Google seem to have managed to convince people that adverts are not annoying, "we are helping you!".