Is it possible to perform inheritance between bond services?
In particular, I have several services with a common endpoint in each. Can I make them inherit from a service containing that common endpoint?
No, as of December 2017 inheritance of services is not currently supported in C++ or C#.
There are some details that need to be decided on (e.g., what is the name of the inherited method "baseservice.method"? "derivedservice.method"? both?, does inheritance model containment or substitution? how are multiple implementations of the same base hosted on the same endpoint dispatched?) before implementation can move forward. If you'd like to move this forward faster, opening an issue on the GitHub project to start the design process would help.
Related
The OP in this question asks about using an WCF/OData as an internal data access layer.
Arguments of using WCF/OData as access layer instead of EF/L2S/nHibernate directly
The resounding reply seems to be don't do it. I'm in similar position to the OP, but have a concern not raised in the original question. I'm trying to develop (natively) for a lot of different platforms but want to keep as much of the data and business logic server side as possible. So I'll have iOS/Android/Web (MVC)/Desktop applications. Currently, I have a single WinForms applications with an ORM data access layer (LLBLGen Pro).
I'm envisioning moving most of my business / data access logic (possibly still with LLBLGen or other ORM) behind a WCF / OData interface. Then making all my different clients on the different platforms very thin (basically UI and WCF calls).
Is this also overengineered? Am I missing a simpler solution?
I cannot see any problem in your architecture or consider it overengeenered as a OData is a standard protocol and your concept conforms the DRY principle as well.
I change the question: Why would you implement the same business logic in each client to introduce more possible bugs and loose the possibility to fix the errors at one single and centralized place. Your idea makes you able to implement the security layer only once.
OData is a cross-platform standard and you can find a OData libraries for each development platform (MSDN, OData.org, JayData for JavaScript). Furthermore, you can use OData FunctionImports/Service methods and entity-level methods, which will simplify your queries.
If you are running multiplatform development, then you may find more practical to choose platform-agnostic communication protocol, such as HTTP, rather than bringing multiple drivers and ORMs to access your data Sources directly. In addition since OData is a REST protocol, you don't need much on the Client side: anything that can format OData HTTP requests and parse HTTP responses. There are however a few aspects to be aware of:
OData server is not a replacement for an SQL database. It supports batches but they are not the same as DB transactions (although in many cases can be used to model transactional operations). It supports parent-child relations but it does not support JOINs in classic SQL sense. So you have to plan what you expose as OData entity. It's too easy to build an OData server using WCF Data Services wrapping EF model. Too easy because People often expose low Level database content instead of building high level domain types.
As for today an OData multiplatorm clients are still under development, but they are coming. If I may suggest something I am personally working on, have a look at Simple.Data OData adapter (https://github.com/simplefx/Simple.OData, look at its Wiki pages for examples) - it has a NuGet package. While this a Client Library that only supports .NET 4.0, part of it is being extracted to be published as a portable class Library Simple.OData.Client to support .NET 4.x, Windows Store, Silverlight 5, Windows Phone 8, Android and iOS. In fact, if you check winrt branch of the Git repository, you will find a multiplatform PCL already, it's just not published on NuGet yet.
I'm in the situation that I have to design and implement a system from the scratch. I have some questions about the architecture that I would like your comments and thoughts on.
Quick Info about the project: It's a data centric web application.
The application will be built on Microsoft .NET Framework 4.0 with MS SQL SERVER 2008 database.
Requirement:
Rich UI and robust
Multi-device support (every browser and on every device)
Loosely coupled
Below is the architectural diagram I have built:
Briefing of the architecture
Presentation layer : HTML5/ASP.NET MVC + JQuery (Web application for multi-device support in first version)
Distributed Services : WCF (XML/JSON/JSONP)
Domain Layer(Business Layer) : All business logic
Data persistence (DAL Layer) : Entity Framework 4.0 with database first approach. POCO entities are generated and separated out using T4 template
Infrastructural Layer: Contains common libraries like POCO entities, Exception Handling, logging etc
My Concerns :
As application is to be built loosely coupled so in future if business requirement grows new modules can be easily plugged in without affecting the architecture.
So I thought of using the Repository pattern along with IoC and DI (can be Unity/Ninject/Sprint.NET or any other)
WCF with both XML and JSON support
Distributed Service Layer to place IoC & DI
Exception Handling & Logging using Enterprise Library 5.0
Looking for valuable comments and suggestions.
If I am doing anything wrong please put me in right direction.
I would suggest the following comment: right from the outset your approach will create tight coupling. This goes directly against your requirement #3 "Loosely coupled"
In your diagram you have defined two modules. Main module, and Module 2. I would guess that these two modules are quite distinct from each other. What I mean by this is that you could develop them completely separately and then plug them in, because the business concerns they address are different.
However, your current architectural approach:
Couples Main Module and Module 2 data into the same database
Couples Main Module and Module 2 business objects into the same business layer
Couples Main Module and Module 2 services into the same service layer
Couples the deployment and management of Main Module and Module 2
What may be worth considering: Build Main Module and Module 2 as separate vertical service stacks.
What I mean is Main Module and Module 2 become Main Service and Service 2
Each service has it's own database, it's own business layer, it's own services layer and it's own UI components.
However, this raises the concern: how can Main Service and Service 2 both work together to create my product?
To address this:
At the UI end, you stitch your front end together by using client-side code to load responses from the Main Service and Service 2 into one view.
At the back end you use publish subscribe messaging to allow Main Service to subscribe to events happening in Service 2 and vice versa.
This will result in an application built from the ground up on top of loosely coupled vertical service stacks, which maintain consistency by the asynchronous exchange of messages.
If you then need to add in a new module to your application, you can create a new service stack which supports the desired capability and wire it up with little or even no change needed to the other stacks (ideally the only reason to change existing stacks would be that they want to subscribe to events from the new module).
It's a very different approach to the one you're suggesting, but one which allows you to meet the requirement for loose coupling better, in my opninion.
How come that the architecture diagram doesn't use the domain layer for ASP.NET?
It seems to me that you may be overarchitecturing your application. Also, while it looks great to support 6 (or so) different front-end technologies, the effort to maintain all of them will be horrendous. I'd stick to one technology for the front-end - most likely HTML5 with client-side MVC or similar.
It makes sense that the WPF, WinForm etc UIs should call the WCF layer. I'm assuming that it's a business requirement to have multiple UIs, otherwise if you can only have one UI a responsive web UI is the most flexible choice.
However, I don't think your MVC UI needs to use the WCF layer. It could call the domain layer directly. That would be faster and remove a pointless layer.
Obviously, that would only work so long as you don't put any logic in your WCF layer. And the WCF layer really shouldn't have any logic in it.
You also state that you want to place IoC & DI in the Distributed Service Layer. That doesn't make much sense in terms of your MVC UI. You'll need to use DI in the MVC project so you can unit test the controllers.
Looking at your diagram I have a couple of points I'm not clear on:
Where is the domain model? Domain Core or the 'model' in the persistence layer?
How does the domain layer interact with the data access layer? The interaction is not as clear as between the service/application layer and domain layer.
What the difference between a repository in the domain layer and a repository in the data access layer? I usually make the distinction of having 'model repositories' in the domain layer which act upon domain model objects, and 'data gateways' in the data access layer which act upon DTO's.
What is domain core? Is this the implementation of the application layer transactions?
Does there need to be a further abstraction of the persistence framework? (EF)
I am going to use Entity Framework and WCF in my application. The suggested practice, as I saw, is using POCO with Entity Framework and also using POCO classes as DataContracts. That is actually what POCO and Attributes are used for, -if I am not wrong.
However I am asked to use seperate classses for Entity Framework POCO's and WCF DataContracts. And to use a mapper between POCO's and DataContracts. Like, Foo and FooContract with same properties.
I am on the first approachs side but I wonder if the second approach (seperate classes approach) provides flexibility to the application or is it just a waste of effort.
I will be grateful if you can share your thoughts and experiences about using seperate classes for POCO and DataContracts, pros and cons about that.
Having separate classes for your POCOs and your Contracts will allow you to create Message Oriented services rather than RPC Style services.
Having Message Oriented services will allow your services to be more flexible, do more work, and be less tied to the objects that each service uses.
Message Based services also fall more in line with the spirit of Service Oriented Architectures. You can read more about Message Oriented services at Wikipedia.
I would also suggest picking up Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology & Design by Thomas Erl if you are interested in the principles behind good service design.
Having different data classes at persistence layer and contract level gives you the most flexibility. For example, you may not want to expose all your persistent fields over a contract or you may want to expose different hierarchy of data over a contract etc. It also allows to change both independently of each other.
It may seem at first that using different classes at both level is duplication - but over long term, efforts are not so much (compared to flexibility that you get). You may get tempted to use same classes and develop different one when need arises but issue with that approach is that within short time frame, your services get tightly coupled with data classes rather than information/data that services should be exposing/working with.
I agree with #JustinNiessner and the best guidance I have found for architecting .NET applications using SOLID principles is a series of posts by .Net Junkie and the associated codeplex project. Clearly stated and informative, well worth reading.
In my SOA architecture, I have several WCF services.
All of my services need to access the database.
Should I create a specialized WCF service in charge of all the database access ?
Or is it ok if each of my services have their own database access ?
In one version, I have just one Entity layer instanced in one service, and all the other services depend on this service.
In the other one the Entity layer is duplicated in each of my services.
The main drawback of the first version is the coupling induced.
The drawback of the other version is the layer duplication, and maybe SOA bad practice ?
So, what do so think good people of Stack Overflow ?
Just my personal opinion, if you create a service for all database access then multiple services depend on ONE service which sort of defeats the point of SOA (i.e. Services are autonomous), as you have articulated. When you talk of layer duplication, if each service has its own data to deal with, is it really duplication. I realize that you probably have the same means of interacting with your relational databases or back from the OOA days you had a common class library that encapsulated data access for you. This is one of those things I struggle with myself, but I see no problem in each service having its own data layer. In fact, in Michele Bustamante's book (Chapter 1 - Page 8) - she actually depicts this and adds "Services encapsulate business components and data access". If you notice each service has a separate DALC layer. This is a good question.
It sounds as if you have several services but a single database.
If this is correct you do not really have a pure SOA architecture since the services are not independant. (There is nothing wrong with not having a pure SOA architecture, it can often be the correct choice)
Adding an extra WCF layer would just complicate and slow down your solution.
I would recommend that you create a single data access dll which contains all data access and is referenced by each WCF service. That way you do not have any duplication of code. Since you have a single database, any change in the database/datalayer would require a redeployment of all services in any case.
Why not just use a dependency injection framework, and, if they are currently using the same database, then just allow them to share the same code, and if these were in the same project then they would all use the same dll.
That way, later, if you need to put in some code that you don't want the others to share, you can make changes and just create a new DAO layer.
If there is a certain singleton that all will use, then you can just inject that in when you inject in the dao layer.
But, this will require that they use the same DI framework controller.
The real win that SOA brings is that it reduces the number of linkages between applications.
In the past I've worked with organizations who have done it a many different ways. Some data layers are integrated, and some are abstracted.
The way I've seen it most successfully done is when you create generic data-layer services for each app/database and you create the higher level services based on your newly created data layer.
I've inherited this really weird codebase where they've built an external web service over a bunch of internal web services just to add authentication/authorization using WS-Security, WS-Encryption, et al. Less than a month into this engagement, I'm already feeling the pain of coupling volatile components through rigid WSDL, esp considering some of them use WCF and other choose to go WSDL first. Managing various versions of generated proxies and wrappers at various levels is a nightmare!
I'll admit the design is over-complicated and could have been much better, but my question essentially is:
Would you ever build a web service just to provide a cross cutting concern over a bunch of services?
Would this be better implemented as web service handlers?
and lastly...
Would you categorize this under the Web Service Gateway pattern?
I saw that very thing being built one year ago. I almost cried when the team took months to build 4 web services, 2 of which simply wrapped other internal ones, using WCF and some serious encryption. The only reason they wrapped the internal ones was to change the potential error numbers coming back.
So, would I ever intentionaly do that? Nope.
Would it be better implemented as almost anything else? yep.
Would I categorize it under the WTF pattern? absolutely.
UPDATE:
One thing I just remembered is that there is an architecture called "Enterprise Service Bus" It's purpose is to provide a common interface into other SOA systems. This way it doesn't matter what the different applications use for their end point mechanisms (WCF, WSE 1/2/3, RESTful, etc).
BizTalk is one example of an ESB and there are many other off the shelf programs that can be used. Basically, your app passes a message to the ESB and it handles sending that message, in a reliable way, to the other systems as well as marshalling any responses back.
This also means that you could insulate other applications from many types of changes to the end points. Of course, if the new end points require additional information, then you'd have to modify the callers. However, if all they are changing is the mechanism then a good ESB would be able to handle those changes without impacting your app.
I have seen similar implementations if you are exposing the services to the outside world and if you need to tighten down the security..check this MSDN column..