Comments on: ServiceCapture: A Dream Come True http://aralbalkan.com/440 Changing the world through technology and oratory. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:59:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-beta2 hourly 1 By: Eric Lawrence http://aralbalkan.com/440/comment-page-1#comment-191278 Eric Lawrence Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:16:19 +0000 #comment-191278 You might also consider Fiddler2 (www.fiddler2.com). It's free, easy to use, and uses Windows platform-native controls so it "feels" less kludgy than some Java-based programs. It doesn't currently have an AMF viewer, but it's extensible and it should be pretty easy to write one using any .NET language. You might also consider Fiddler2 (www.fiddler2.com). It’s free, easy to use, and uses Windows platform-native controls so it “feels” less kludgy than some Java-based programs.

It doesn’t currently have an AMF viewer, but it’s extensible and it should be pretty easy to write one using any .NET language.

]]> By: antoniobrandao http://aralbalkan.com/440/comment-page-1#comment-190336 antoniobrandao Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:24:28 +0000 #comment-190336 I'm not comparing SC to Charles. But ServiceCapture is available for macOS and it does a perfect job for me for debugging AMF calls and checking what my websites are doing. go Aral! I’m not comparing SC to Charles. But ServiceCapture is available for macOS and it does a perfect job for me for debugging AMF calls and checking what my websites are doing.

go Aral!

]]> By: peter http://aralbalkan.com/440/comment-page-1#comment-172762 peter Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:53:36 +0000 #comment-172762 I don't agree at all! Yes, Charles shareware version is not very pleasant to work with, I agree. But judging a program only by it's shareware restrictions is wrong. After trying both I found Charles far more superior! I couldn't setup amf over https on servicecapture. service capture can't display the raw text of amf calls. Charles' interface is not at all slow, and easier to read, with more display options. Charles' browser installation is a lot smoother. I would never go back to service capture. I don’t agree at all!

Yes, Charles shareware version is not very pleasant to work with, I agree. But judging a program only by it’s shareware restrictions is wrong.

After trying both I found Charles far more superior!
I couldn’t setup amf over https on servicecapture.
service capture can’t display the raw text of amf calls.
Charles’ interface is not at all slow, and easier to read, with more
display options.
Charles’ browser installation is a lot smoother.

I would never go back to service capture.

]]> By: David http://aralbalkan.com/440/comment-page-1#comment-128085 David Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:07:24 +0000 #comment-128085 Charles has a much cleaner default output, and ServiceCapture seemed to cause issues with Entourage and some other network services. Yeah, Charles is $50, but I found Charles to be the better fit. Charles offers free lifetime updates and I'm not sure if ServiceCapture matches the deal. If not, the total investment may be moot on the next release of ServiceCapture. Charles has a much cleaner default output, and ServiceCapture seemed to cause issues with Entourage and some other network services. Yeah, Charles is $50, but I found Charles to be the better fit. Charles offers free lifetime updates and I’m not sure if ServiceCapture matches the deal. If not, the total investment may be moot on the next release of ServiceCapture.

]]> By: spif http://aralbalkan.com/440/comment-page-1#comment-476 spif Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:00:23 +0000 #comment-476 just a bummer ServiceCapture is windows only. Even though it's developed in Java. just a bummer ServiceCapture is windows only. Even though it’s developed in Java.

]]>