What you seem to want is to create dynamic web services where you would
specify an xml and it will create a web service that will be mediating
between the database and the client. I am making this assumption for the
rest of the mail.
1) you create an object that mirror the table (or your xml will have to map
database field to .NET Class field) in a C# code and compile it with csc.
2) then you create an object with methods such as Select which returns an
array of the type you created in step 1. You compile this also in another
assembly (maybe you can combine both into one assembly?)
Either:
3a) Make it available via a Remote Object
http://msdn.microsoft.com/architectu...SecNetHT15.asp
The executable could be a remote service.
or
3b) you can create an asmx to put on IIS that provides the Soap Service.
Hopes that help, I am just think aloud here...
There is a tool called Program Files\Microsoft.NET\SDK\v1.1\Bin\SoapSuds.exe
(look on google for "soapsuds"). Have a look at it, it may help.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...oapsudsexe.asp
PS: You can also have a thread that look for change in XML to regenerate
what has changed. You can even work of a database schema. good luck.
"Jonah Olsson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi Yoz,
>
> ..and maybe I'm in deep water 
> Should I reconsider the entire design? Maybe each client web application
has
> to be custom built to match their database? What do you suggest?
>
> Thanks
> Jonah
>
>
> "yoz" <netfever@hot_REMOVE_SPAM_mail.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:XHUYa.8911$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I am not sure if you want to do it at runtime, but if you do, create a
C#
> > class from the XML (hey you can even do it with XSLT ;-) and use the
free
> > csc.exe (C# compiler) in your windows/Microsoft.NET folder to compile.
> >
> > If you really want to make things hard for yourself, I know (heard)
there
> > are helper classes to create Assemblies straight without code. I don't
> have
> > the book with me, but they seem to exists. naaaaaa, option 1 would be
far
> > cheaper.
>
>