I'm having some message design head-aches. I want to start up an NServiceBus saga for a long running process. Part of the data needed to do the initialization is a list of constraints, which are implementations of an abstract base class. As I've understood the design philosophy, messages should ideally be
Self-contained, that is contain all the data needed to process them. Following this, I would pass along all the list of constraints in the message.
Versionable. NServiceBus does this by using an XML serializer which does not pass along type information (see this thread answer by Udi). In my case, that means I cannot on the recieving end pick up the specifics of the constraints.
The serialization problems can be "solved" by using the BinarySerializer, but this does not seem to be a recommended practice since it breaks versioning. The alternative is to send along some identifier so that the constraints can be retrieved from some datastore, but that would remove the "self-containedness".
Is there a third way here, or do I simply have to choose some "least bad" solution?
There is also the option of having these objects injected into your saga via DI.
Just create a boostrapping class that at startup will call:
Configure.Instance.Configurer.ConfigureProperty<yourSaga>(s => s.SomeProperty = value);
Related
I am creating a brand new application, including the database, and I'm going to use Entity Framework Code First. This will also use WCF for services which also opens it up for multiple UI's for different devices, as well as making the services API usable from other unknown apps.
I have seen this batted around in several posts here on SO but I don't see direct questions or answers pertaining to Code First, although there are a few mentioning POCOs. I am going to ask the question again so here it goes - do I really need DTOs with Entity Framework Code First or can I use the model as a set of common entities for all boundaries? I am really trying to follow the YAGNI train of thought so while I have a clean sheet of paper I figured that I would get this out of the way first.
Thanks,
Paul Speranza
There is no definite answer to this problem and it is also the reason why you didn't find any.
Are you going to build services providing CRUD operations? It generally means that your services will be able to return, insert, update and delete entities as they are = you will always expose whole entity or single exactly defined serializable part of the entity to all clients. But once you do this it probably worth to check WCF Data Services.
Are you going to expose business facade working with entities? The facade will provide real business methods instead of just CRUD operations. These buisness methods will get some data object and decompose it to multiple entities in wrapped business logic. Here it makes sense to use specific DTO for every operation. DTO will transfer only data needed for the operation and return only date allowed to the client.
Very simple example. Suppose that your entities keep information like LastModifiedBy. This is probably information you want to pass back to the client. In the first scenario you have single serializable set so you will pass it back to the client and client pass it modified back to the service. Now you must verify that client didn't change the field because he probably didn't have permissions to do that. You must do it with every single field which client didn't have permission to change. In the second scenario your DTO with updated data will simply not include this property (= specialized DTO for your operation) so client will not be able to send you a new value at all.
It can be somehow related to the way how you want to work with data and where your real logic will be applied. Will it be on the service or on the client? How will you ensure that client will not post invalid data? Do you want to restrict passing invalid data by logic or by specific transferred objects?
I strongly recommend a dedicated view model.
Doing this means:
You can design the UI (and iterate on it) without having to wait to design the data model first.
There is less friction when you want to change the UI.
You can avoid security problems with auto-mapping/model binding "accidentally" updating fields which shouldn't be editable by the user -- just don't put them in the view model.
However, with a WCF Data Service, it's hard to ignore the advantage of being able to write the service in essentially one line when you expose entities directly. So that might make the most sense for the WCF/server side.
But when it comes to UI, you're "gonna need it."
do I really need DTOs with Entity Framework Code First or can I use the model as a set of common entities for all boundaries?
Yes, the same set of POCOs / entities can be used for all boundaries.
But a set of mappers / converters / configurators will be needed to adapt entities to some generic structures of each layer.
For example, when entities are configured with DataContract and DataMember attributes, WCF is able to transfer domain objects' state without creating any special classes.
Similarly, when entities are mapped using Entity Framework fluent mapping api, EF is able to persist domain objects' state in database without creating any special classes.
The same way, entities can be configured to be used in any layer by means of the layer infrastructure without creating any special classes.
Is it possible to create a "generic" as in "adaptable" routing service, which will NOT have any public methods to call. Instead, you'd be able to call any command, which would then be mapped in the service and will pass it to appropriate end point with simple message transformation where required.
It may be hard to understand and idea might seem a bit crazy (it came from a colleague of mine), but it's clearer if you look at the example:
similar to what's described in this article, only difference is that our service should not have a "SubmitTimeSheet" public method, in fact it should have no public methods to call. We'd have to "intercept" an incoming call on a much lower level before it returns "Method Not Found" error.
Is this at all possible? The reason for this is obvious: possibility of adding new clients without having to change the code. All we'd have to do is to add a new mapping entry in some sort of config file or even database, e.g.
<Client address="newClientAddress" method="DoAnything" transformation="NewClientDoAnything.xslt" endPoint="endPointClientAddress" endPointMethod="endPointClientDoAnything" />
Check out WCF 4 routing - supports content based routing, xpath transforms and much more.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/routingrules/
They have already done it in Nirvana. But it is very expensive.
This is not possible in WCF unless you define your contract as a very loose, fit-for-all contract which takes a message and returns a message. By doing this, you will los all the goodness (although not huge goodness in WCF) of WCF.
I'm in the process of designing my first "proper" WCF service and I'm trying to get my head around how to best handle versioning of the service.
In older ASMX web services, I would create aMethodNameRequest and MethodNameResponse object for each web service method.
A request object would really just be a POCO wrapper around what would typically be in the method parameters. A response object might typically inherit from a base response object that has information about any errors.
Reading about WCF and how the IExtensibleDataObject, FaultContractAttribute and Namespacing works, it seems that I can revert back to using standard parameters (string, int etc) in my method names, and if the service is versioned, then ServiceContract inheritance can provide this versioning.
I've been looking into http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731060.aspx and linked articles in that, but I was just looking for a bit of clarification.
Am I correct in thinking that dispensing with the Request/Response objects is more ideal for WCF versioning?
EDIT: I just found this article which suggests using explicit request/response object: http://www.dasblonde.net/2006/01/05/VersioningWCFServiceContracts.aspx
I don't agree that dispensing with Request/Response objects is that way to go.
There are obvious benefits of coding with messages:
you can reuse them, which avoids pass 5 ints and 3 strings to a number of different methods.
the properties are named and so can be reliably understood, whereas a parameter that is passed by value through multiple tiers could be confused, and so on.
they can be proper objects rather than just data containers, if you choose - containing private methods, etc
But you are really asking about versioning. Don't forget that you can version the messages within your service contracts. The classes in assembly can have the same name provided they are in different namespaces (e.g. v1.Request and v2.Request), and they can both implement a required interface or inherit from some base object.
They also need to be versioned for your service consumer, which can be done with xml namespaces; I've typically put the service contracts (the operations) in a namespace like http://myapp.mydomain/v1 and the messages (the request and response objects) in http://myapp.mydomain/v1/messages.
One gotcha with this approach is that if you have an operation, call it Submit, in the http://myapp.mydomain/v1 namespace then by convention / default the soap objects SubmitRequest and SubmitResponse will also exist in the same namespace (I don't remember what the run-time exception is but it confused me for a while). The resolution is to put message objects in another namespace as I've described above.
See "Versioning WCF Services: Part I" and "Versioning WCF Services: Part II".
I'm new to WCF, so apologies if I'm missing the boat completely.
It seems like WCF provides plenty of functionality for using the "Channel" layer by itself. For example, to create a server, you can create a channel listener from a binding and call WaitForRequest, Reply, etc. These methods all deal with Message objects, so it is up to you to do something with the message.
My question has to do with what happens once we've already got a message. Suppose I have an object that implements a service, described by a ServiceContract, and a Message object which I know represents a call to a particular operation. What I'd really like to do is something like:
Message requestMessage = GetMessageSomehow();
OperationDescription oc = GetContractForMessage();
Message replyMessage = Invoke(myService, oc, requestMessage);
At the very least, if I could somehow access the IOperationInvoker and IDispatchMessageFormatter objects that get created for a type, it would be pretty simple to chain them together to get the functionality I'm looking for.
In my particular case, I need to implement some simple Soap 1.1 and 1.2 services (with no WS-Addressing). I already have HttpListenerRequest/Response objects, and can route based off of either the SOAPAction or ContentType header.
I think having this functionality would also be pretty useful for unit testing. For example, I need to implement to existing clients. It would be nice to have unit tests where I could test that the Attributes on the service class are correct (i.e. that the message that I know I will be getting gets properly translated into a call on my service interface).
Any suggestions?
Serialization/Deserialization from that Message instance to actual parameters for a call is usually done by an IDispatchMessageFormatter / IClientMessageFormatter.
On the server side, an IDispatchMessageFormatter is injected into the DispatchRuntime by a custom operation behavior that the data contract serializer (or other serializer) inserts.
But... if you're not using ServiceHost, there's no DispatchRuntime. Basically, if you want all of this, you're going to have to do all the hard work yourself :)
That said, if you can get an OperationDescription object, you should be able to instantiate a DataContractSerializerOperationBehavior, but you won't be able to get an IDispatchMessageFormatter out of it... you can get an XmlObjectSerializer, though, which might, or might not, be useful for you.
Notice that an IOperationInvoker wouldn't help all that much, since that presumes you've already done message serialization/deserialization, so it's not really all that useful (and the rest of the functionality is fairly simple for basic use cases if you want to roll it yourself)
Is it ok from your real-world-experience to define service contract with one method which will accept some object as a form of request and return some other object as a result of that request. What I mean is instead of having method for creating, deleting, editing and searching customers I would have these activities encapsulated within DataContracts and what service would do after receiving such DataContract would be take some action accordingly. But service interface would be simple as that:
interface ISomeService
{
IMessageResult Process(IMessageRequest msg);
}
So IMessageRequest would have filed named OperationType = OperationTypes.CreateCustomer and rest of fields would provide enough information for the service that it could create Customer object or record in database or whatever. And IMessageResult could have field with some code for indication that customer was created or not.
What I'm trying to achieve by such design is an ability to easy delegate IMessageRequest to other internal services that client side wouldn't even know about. Another benefit I see is that if we will have to add some operation on customers we only provide additional DataContract for this operation and don't have to change anything on service interface side (I want to avoid this at all costs, I mean not new operations but changing service interface :)
So, what do you think? Is it good way of handling complicated business processes? What are pitfals, what could be better.
If I duplicated some other thread and there are some answers to my question please provide me with links because I didn't find them.
Short answer: yes, this could be a very good idea (and one I have implemented in one form or another a couple of times).
A good starting point for this type of approach are the posts by Davy Brion on what he calls the request/response layer. He consolidated his initial ideas & thoughts into a very usable OSS project called Agatha, which I am proposing at a customer site as I write this.
This is exactly what we're doing here where I work. It works great and is easy for all the developers to understand, and really easy to wire up new methods/class/etc.