We have to implement a provided external API.
This API cannot be changed.
For this API, SOAP messages are exchanged, and one of them dealing with fault exception is like that :
<h:Parent xmlns:h="namespace1">
<Member xmlns="namespace2">0</Member>
</h:Parent>
While we can implement this with other frameworks such as asmx, we do not succeed in doing it in WCF : data member seems to have the same namespace as the datacontract.
Is there a way to add a namespace for datamember ?
Thanks a lot
You can change the namespace associated to the Member data contract using the Namespace property.
Related
I've looked around - can't find the answer to this, even in lots of sample code.
I'm trying to compile a WCF Service Application that uses [datacontract] classes as parameters on the interface members, which are from a global C# class library... This is on the server side. When I import the service reference into the client, it's re-namespace-based the global class library classes, and generated a bunch of serialization code!
I cannot add a reference to the global class library in the client project and use the classes freely. this seems clunky. I've checked the button when importing the service reference "reuse types", but I don't know what that does, but it's not the right thing.
During the import of the service library, it allows me to specify the namespace for the about-to-be-generated proxy classes. I'm pretty sure this isn't supposed to be the same namespace as the classes used on the server side!
example:
GLOBAL CLASS LIBRARY
namespace SquallGlobal
[datacontract] class ProcessStartInfo{ }
WCF SERVICE
namespace Squall
[servicecontract] interface IJob{
[OperationContract] StartJob( SquallGlobal.ProcessStartInfo psi );
}
END USER PROJECT
WCF Service imported under namespace 'Squall_Imported'
using SquallGlobal;
if I want to call proxy.StartJob( ), I need to pass in a Squall_Imported.ProcessStartInfo, not SquallGlobal.ProcessStartInfo!
Thus, the final question: How do I keep the proxy-generation code from re-basing the namespace on global classes used in interface methods?
I have a WCF service containing an entity framework project.
I also have DTO classes that I use to expose the data. The entity objects get mapped to DTO objects.
When I generate a service proxy I am seeing both the entity object and the DTO object.
If I have a table called Product I get a Product and a Product1 reference.
This didn't use to happen.
What have I done to cause this and how can I stop my entity objects being exposed?
More Info:
When EF generates a model object from the database, it adds a data contract attribute like this:
[EdmEntityTypeAttribute(NamespaceName="KernMobile_V5Model", Name="JobMaster")]
[Serializable()]
[DataContractAttribute(IsReference=true)]
public partial class JobMaster : EntityObject
I assume this means that it will be exposed by the service?
The service only exposes objects that are used in the service operations, or are specified as a known type to be exposed.
If your client proxy is generating an object for these entity framework objects, you must be exposing them through your service somehow. This can be as request or response objects, or as properties on those objects.
I'm trying to write a WCF Web service that will return my data as JSON so I can call it from some client script.
I know I need to decorate any classes I want to return from the Web Methods in a [DataContract] attribute and then any Members in a [DataMember]. That in mind I want to return entity types so I went to the Entity ObjectContext classes.
However when I look at the .edmx file I can see that the classes have been decorated like so...
[EdmEntityTypeAttribute(NamespaceName="PteDotNetModel", Name="AssocFile")]
[Serializable()]
[DataContractAttribute(IsReference=true)]
public partial class AssocFile : EntityObject
When I then try and add [DataContract] I get an error saying I can't have duplicated attributes. I'm confused whilst they are similar they are clearly different no?
The second part of my question is how I return entity types over a WCF service?
The two attributes are the same; the trailing "Attribute" can be excluded. From MSDN:
By convention, all attribute names end with the word "Attribute" to distinguish them from other items in the .NET Framework. However, you do not need to specify the attribute suffix when using attributes in code.
I would like to declare an interface in my Web Service layer and then have the caller create objects of this interface type via proxy and use them to call the service methods.
However, when I decorate the interface with DataContract attribute, I get an error saying this attribute can only be applied to class, struct and enum. I don't think that ServiceContract attribute makes sense, as the interface I am trying to expose is used only for data transfer purposes. I also noticed that when the interface was decorated with ServiceContract, it wasn't displayed in the proxy class created.
What is the best practice to go about this?
You cannot do that. "DataContract" interface cannot be exposed as part of metadata. Also even if you share the interface (in assembly) your clients will not be able to send their implementation back to your service because receiving side needs real type for deserialized instance.
The service contract is used on the interface, that is the name of the services. The data contract is used on the class, the data that you are sending over.
ServiceContract on the interface
OperationContract on the methods
DataContract on Class
DataMember on properties
See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163647.aspx
I have a WCF web service that implements a parameter List<ICustomObject>. In the generated client code, the parameter is List<Object>?!? How can I make it accept the List<ICustomObject>, as an interface, or do I have to use a concrete class? I have the concrete class marked as [KnowType] and [Serializable]
You should use concrete class, because you should set DataMember and DataContract for it to serilize it, and with interface you can't do this.
WCF works with anything that is expressible in XML schema - interfaces per se are not.
You need to define your lists to be lists of concrete types - otherwise the client will not be able to know what to do with the list and will fall back to a List<Object>.