What is the relationship between WCF and REST&SOAP? Is WCF based on one of those technologies (REST or SOAP) or it is a separate technology?
WCF is a messaging framework for building distributed systems. Distributed systems is mostly just another word for web services.
What this means is that you can write methods in C# (or any of the .NET languages) and then apply a bunch of configurations to the code that make your code accessible to others and turn your code into a web service.
Those "bunch of configurations" are WCF. WCF allows you to expose your methods to other computers or applications using REST if you set up the WCF configurations around your C# code to expose it as a RESTful service. Or, you can easily take the same C# methods and make them available via the SOAP protocol.
If you have a method called "GetData()", you can set up the WCF configuration to make that method available in a service that is hosted in IIS. When someone calls that service, they can send an HTTP GET request to http://www.yourdomain.com/SomeService/GetData, and the GetData method will receive the message and send back a response. When you make a GET request over HTTP, you're using the REST. REST is pretty much tied to HTTP as the transport protocol. REST also has no standard message format. Whatever you want to send in your HTTP message, and however you want to send it is OK. You can send XML, or JSON, or just plain text. You can use POST, or GET or PUT or any of the HTTP verbs as well.
With SOAP, your messages can be sent to the service using any transport protocol -- you aren't tied to HTTP. SOAP messages are designed to be transport neutral. They are encoded in XML and the XML always has a head and a body node inside of an envelope node. There are lots of web standards around SOAP -- standards for putting security, sessions and other features into the header of the message, for example. Also, with SOAP, you get a WSDL, which I won't go into explaining here, but it makes it a LOT easier for clients to program against. Most programming languages have a method of taking a WSDL and converting it into strongly-typed methods and objects so that your service is easy to call.
REST is very popular on the internet and is as scalable as the internet (i.e. VERY scalable). SOAP is very popular in business-to-business applications.
WCF isn't automatically REST or SOAP, but you can make it that way. What you need here is a tutorial:
WCF
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/406096/A-beginners-tutorial-for-understanding-Windows
REST
http://rest.elkstein.org/
Here's some other interesting stuff:
WCF - REST / SOAP
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh323708(v=vs.100).aspx
WCF and REST
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee391967.aspx
Or you can do a google/bing/metacrawler/altavista search on your own.....
From MSDN
The WCF programming model provides various capabilities, such as SOAP
services, web HTTP services, data services, rich internet application
(RIA) services, and workflow services. SOAP services support
interoperability between systems that are built with Java, other
platforms, and those that use messaging standards that are supported
by Microsoft®. SOAP services also support transports such as HTTP,
TCP, named pipes, and MSMQ. Web HTTP services and data services both
support REST. Web HTTP services enable you to control the service
location, request and response, formats, and protocols. Data services
enable you to expose data models, and data-driven logic as services.
WCF also includes two programming models: The service model and the
channel model. The service model provides a framework for defining
data contracts, service contracts and service behaviors. The channel
model supports specifying formats, transports, and protocols.
Both SOAP and REST services can provide functionality to web
applications, and both can be used to exchange information in the
web's distributed environment. Each one has its own advantages, and
limitations.
Although, this question has got several good answers, just putting in my 2-cents, in an attempt for newbies to WCF vs SOAP vs REST-full services, to make it a bit easier for them to understand.
We get confusions, whether WCF supports both REST and SOAP ? And, normally, we just see generic definitions about SOAP and REST. So , we need something from Microsoft to make us feel the truth : ) So here's a screenshot from Microsoft MSDN :
So, yes, WCF supports both .
In context with OP:
SOAP services: in WCF programming model support interoperability between systems that are built with Java, other
platforms, and those that use messaging standards that are supported
by Microsoft®. These also support transports such as HTTP,
TCP, named pipes, and MSMQ.
Web HTTP services : in WCF programming model supports REST. [Source: MSDN]
Related
I have created a WCF service and hosted it through self hosting. This service doesn't have any metada published.
First Question
Can I consume it through Visual Studio, Add Service Reference? Hopefully not.
Can I consume it by creating manual proxy, i.e. ChannelFactory<ServiceContract>....?Hopefully yes.
Now in the second scenario, the client must be .Net, right?
So it implies that, to consume a wcf service on a non-.net platform, we have to expose its metadata?
Can't a WCF service without metadata, consume by Ajax client, or say Java client??
There are 3 options to consume a WCF Service:
If the service exposes a WSDL use "add service reference" from VS (or an equivalent from another platform). Note that if you do not want to expose the WSDL you could expose it just temporarly, save the WSDL in a file, and then send it to user in any platform to generate proxy from it. You can turn off the WSDL immediately after you save it. Also note that even if the WSDL is not exposed still you need to protect the web service from unauthorized access.
If this is a .Net client it can compile with the same Service Contract assembly and use ChannelFactory etc.
Any platform can send raw soap message (e.g. XML) to the service. Of course they need to know what is the right format. A WSDL can help but even without it if they have a working sample they can imitate it.
WCF provides REST (Representational State Transfer) support to consume it by non .NET client like JavaScript (AJAX), java, Objective C, web browser, etc...
Basically WCF REST is exposes methods and transferring data over the HTTP protocol and it supports all HTTP operations (GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE). This feature is making it platform independent as well as it doesn’t require metadata exposed.
Please refere below links to get more about WCF REST:
An Introduction To RESTful Services With WCF
WCF REST Programming Model Overview
WCF Rest vs. WCF SOAP
Create RESTful WCF Service API: Step By Step Guide
I'm new to WCF RESTFull services developpment and I'm looking for some usefull information and your experience feedback about using webHttpBinding compared to the new WCF Web API http://wcf.codeplex.com/.
What I'm looking for is to know about the shortcomings of webHttpBinding and therefore why to use the new Web api and especially what problems the new API resolves.
If you could point me to some blog posts comparing both of them or just talking about the problems when using webHttpBinding I would appreciate. Thank you in advance.
Main shortcomings I would say is that the webhttpbinding makes it difficult to handle HTTP specific concerns. It works great if all you are doing is passing an object over HTTP that is serialized into XML or JSON and which may be transported over different formats.
HTTP is much more than a simple transport protocol for XML and JSON, it is an application layer protocol with rich semantics. Web API is specifically targetting folks that want to build systems over HTTP that fully levergage HTTP's richness.
Web API embraces that HTTP Resources can have a multitude of representations based on the needs of different clients. One end of the spectrum could be a dumb browser that just talks to a service using a Form url encoded post and a GET, while the other end could be a more rich client that uses Atom/OData or a hypermedia based media type.
Web API embraces that there are other HTTP specific concerns like conneg, etags, etc which allow better leveraging intermediary web servers.
Web API is designed with more testability in mind, thus you can address working with HTTP messages or other concerns in a more testable manner.
Web API has a more simplified configuration story.
You can read more about the rationale here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/endpoint/archive/2010/11/01/wcf-web-apis-http-your-way.aspx
The most significant difference for me is the change in programming model. You no longer write 'services' which expose 'operations' bound to HTTP idioms (GET, POST etc.). With Web APIs you create 'resources' (POCOs) with which your clients can interact.
Web APIs seem to be better at handling various custom media types (like PNG images for example).
Last but not least, Web APIs are far better suited for automated testing. For instance, you no longer have to use static context classes to access HTTP concepts such as response codes. You use POCO request and response classes which can be easily instantiated in automated tests using old-style new() operator.
I agree with Ladislav that Web APIs are just a preview now and building application on top of it can be both risky and forbidden by the means of license agreement (but I haven't checked that).
Have you considered #serialseb's OpenRasta? It is stable and offers very nice programming model for building RESTful services.
The Web API is something like possible future of REST development in WCF. It is just preview which can significantly change before final release (probably in next version of .NET framework). So if you want to build production REST service you should use webHttpBinding.
Available information about Web Api can be found for example on .NET Connected Framework team's blog and on the site you mentioned. It is simplification and extension of current REST API.
Web API provides a REST-friendly HTTP based API. Web API uses the patterns of MVC and is going to be very familiar to ASP.NET MVC developers. Web API can leverage the capabilities of HTTP as an application layer protocol, returning resources in multiple representations (XML, JSON, HTML etc.) according the the client's request headers.
On the other hand WCF webHttpBinding uses the patterns of WCF, and is going to appeal more to the WCF developer - ServiceContracts, OperationContracts, comprehensive (or overweight, depending how you look at it, config file), ability to self-host outside of IIS.
One of the things I like about Web API is the ability to use dynamic types to escape the constraints of the type system. I also like the default exception behavior in Web API - contrast WCF webHttpBinding where, by default, exceptions bubble up as HTTP 500 + an HTML payload (yuk!).
Its nice to have the choice between two excellent technologies here. I wouldn't describe Web API as 'newer' or 'better' that WCF, as this implies its a replacement technology and that WCF webHttpBinding is legacy, which I don't believe is true.
I chose to use WCF webHttpBinding recently to expose a JSON API for an existing WCF SOAP service. I believe it was a good choice because it fitted that style of that existing solution and minimized the amount of change required.
I am learning wcf but I have trouble understanding the benefits. Is there ever a time I would want to use traditional web services?
I read another thread with these benefits:
Opt in model for members using a certain attribute
Better security
No need to worry about binding (can't understand how this is true)
No need to worry about the xml
I read Programming WCF Services however this was an advanced book a bit like CLR via C#. I am now reading Learning WCF Services and will read Essential WCF (is recommended).
What would happen if I use a normal class to try to talk to a web/service reference? I know this sounds really naive, it's just my lack of experience in web services.
I am coding some WCF services so I am getting exposed to the specifics. They are interacting with a SOAP web service provided by my web host so I can get stats on my site. Is there anything wrong in this approach?
Thanks
WCF is a unified programming model for developing connected systems. What this means is that you use a single framework to develop service-oriented solutions. WCF allows you to keep your service implementation relatively unaware and care free of what's going on under the covers as far as how your service is consumed by clients and communication is handled. This allows you to take your service implementation and expose it in various ways by configuring it differently without touching your service implementation. This is the unified part. Without WCF, you have to get familiar with a framework specific for a particular communication technology such as ASP.NET asmx web service, .NET remoting, MSMQ etc and usually those frameworks impose on your service implementation and creep in such as using WebMethod attribute or having to derive from MarshallByRefObject object etc and you just can not take your service implementation and easily expose it over another communication stack. If I have a service that adds two numbers, why can it not be exposed over http or tcp easily without having to worry about low level details? This is the question in your post regarding binding. Binding allows you take a service and configure it so that it can be exposed over different transports and protocols using different encodings without ever touching your service implementation.
Is there ever a time I would want to use traditional web service?
Web service uses well defined, accepted, and used standards such as HTTP and SOAP. So if you want your service to be consumed by wide range of clients, then you would want to expose your service as a web service. WCF comes with pre-configured bindings out of the box that allows your service to be exposed as a web service easily: basicHttpBinding and wsHttpBinding. You may also want to consider RESTful services which is an architectural style that fits more natural with the HTTP model. WCF supports RESTful services as well
What would happen if I use a normal
class to try to talk to a web/service
reference? I know this sounds really
naive, it's just my lack of experience
in web services.
WCF service can expose the wsdl for a service just like ASP.NET asmx web service does. You can generate a client side proxy by simply adding a service reference to your client project. There is also a command line tool called svcutil that also generates the client side code that allows you to easily communicate with the service. The client side service class basically mirrors the service interface. You create an instance of the client side proxy for the service and then simply call methods on it just like any other .NET object. Under the covers, your method call will get converted to a message and sent over the wire to the server. On the server side, that message will get dispatched to the appropriate service method.
I hope this helps a bit.There are lots of online content such as videos on MSDN and channel 9 that you check out. The more you pound on it and expose yourself to it, the clearer WCF will get I am sure. Also, WCF is THE framework Microsoft recommends to develop connected system in .NET. The other technologies ASP.NET asmx, WSE, and .NET Remoting will most likely still be available going forward but may not be supported and developed further.
There are a number of existing approaches to building distributed applications. These include Web services, .NET Remoting, Message Queuing and COM Services. Windows Communication Foundation unifies these into a single framework for building and consuming services.
Here is a link from MSDN Why Use Windows Communication Foundation?
WCF is really the "new" standard and new generation of web service - and even more generally, communications - protocols and libraries for the .NET world.
Whenever you feel the need to have two systems talk to one another - think WCF. Whether that'll be behind the corporate firewall in your company LAN, whether it's across the internet, by means of a direct call or a delayed message queueing system - WCF is your answer. Mehmet has written a really nice summary of how WCF is the unification of a great many communication standards that existed in the Microsoft world before WCF.
I would think with the "Learning WCF" book, you should be a lot better off than with Programming WCF - that's quite advanced stuff already!
One of the mainstays of WCF is the architecture that you always talk to your service through a proxy - whether that service runs on the same machine using NetNamedPipe binding or halfway around the world in Down Under on a server - no difference, you always go through a proxy. That then also allows WCF to be so extensible - thanks to the proxy always being between the client (your application) and the service, it offers excellent ways of extending the behavior and the inner workings of WCF to your liking and needs.
WCF basically builds on SOAP communications - so interfacing and using existing SOAP services should be no problem at all. With the WCF REST Starter Kit and in the upcoming .NET 4.0 release cycle, WCF will also extend its reach into the REST style web communications, if that's ever going to be a requirement of yours.
All this really shows one of the biggest strenghts of WCF: it's a unified and extremely flexible and extensible communication framework, that can handle just about anything you throw at it. That alone is more than enough reason to learn WCF (which can be dauting at first, I agree!), and you won't regret the effort you put into this endeavor.
Marc
Have you a specific application you are writing for, or just getting your feet wet?
Google protocol buffers, is a very good choice of communications. John Skeet & Marc Gravell have both done C# implementations. See here
i have been reading a little about REST services and i would love to know more.
I wonder if anyone can confirm, currently we have a wcf web service (ending in .svc) and we have many clients accessing (i.e. form linux, max and PC) ...
if i was to change my server to use REST then would the clients break?
If you CHANGE the service to be a RESTful format, then yes...existing clients would have to change.
If you ADD a RESTful endpoint and kept the existing endpoint as well, then no...existing clients could continue to use the old endpoint until they migrated their code to use the new RESTful endpoint.
Well, the two world are really SOAP vs. REST.
The "normal" WCF services using NetTcpBinding, basicHttpBinding, wsHttpBinding etc. are all using SOAP - your message is embededded in a SOAP envelope and sent across the wire, and the response comes back the same way. That's why you can't just point your browser to a WCF service and get data - browsers can't send and receive SOAP messages.
Advantages of SOAP: you have things like WSDL/XSD to clearly and very strictly define what your service does and what kind of data you send around.
REST is a totally different beast - no more SOAP, no more WSDL and XSD, no more creating a client that knows about the data types being shuffled back and forth - you just have URL's which represent resources, and you get back some XML - not a whole lot of system support for describing WHAT that XML will be - you'll have to hope the developer of the REST service provides some documentation about what can be retrieved, and what it looks like.
So REST is a totally different beast than SOAP, and it's implemented in WCF using the webHttpBinding.
So if you have existing "traditional" WCF service and clients, and you now switch your service to REST, then yes - 100% sure you'll break EVERY client....
Marc
What is the difference between them?
When would I opt for one over the other?
This answer is based on an article that no longer exists:
Summary of article:
"Basically, WCF is a service layer that allows you to build applications that can communicate using a variety of communication mechanisms. With it, you can communicate using Peer to Peer, Named Pipes, Web Services and so on.
You can’t compare them because WCF is a framework for building interoperable applications. If you like, you can think of it as a SOA enabler. What does this mean?
Well, WCF conforms to something known as ABC, where A is the address of the service that you want to communicate with, B stands for the binding and C stands for the contract. This is important because it is possible to change the binding without necessarily changing the code. The contract is much more powerful because it forces the separation of the contract from the implementation. This means that the contract is defined in an interface, and there is a concrete implementation which is bound to by the consumer using the same idea of the contract. The datamodel is abstracted out."
... later ...
"should use WCF when we need to communicate with other communication technologies (e,.g. Peer to Peer, Named Pipes) rather than Web Service"
From What's the Difference between WCF and Web Services?
WCF is a replacement for all earlier web service technologies from Microsoft. It also does a lot more than what is traditionally considered as "web services".
WCF "web services" are part of a much broader spectrum of remote communication enabled through WCF. You will get a much higher degree of flexibility and portability doing things in WCF than through traditional ASMX because WCF is designed, from the ground up, to summarize all of the different distributed programming infrastructures offered by Microsoft. An endpoint in WCF can be communicated with just as easily over SOAP/XML as it can over TCP/binary and to change this medium is simply a configuration file mod. In theory, this reduces the amount of new code needed when porting or changing business needs, targets, etc.
ASMX is older than WCF, and anything ASMX can do so can WCF (and more). Basically you can see WCF as trying to logically group together all the different ways of getting two apps to communicate in the world of Microsoft; ASMX was just one of these many ways and so is now grouped under the WCF umbrella of capabilities.
Web Services can be accessed only over HTTP & it works in stateless environment, where WCF is flexible because its services can be hosted in different types of applications. Common scenarios for hosting WCF services are IIS,WAS, Self-hosting, Managed Windows Service.
The major difference is that Web Services Use XmlSerializer. But WCF Uses DataContractSerializer which is better in performance as compared to XmlSerializer.
Web Service
is based on SOAP and return data in XML form.
It support only HTTP protocol.
It is not open source but can be consumed by any client that understands xml.
It can be hosted only on IIS.
WCF
is also based on SOAP and return data in XML form.
It is the evolution of the web service(ASMX) and support various protocols like TCP, HTTP, HTTPS, Named Pipes, MSMQ.
The main issue with WCF is, its tedious and extensive configuration.
It is not open source but can be consumed by any client that understands xml.
It can be hosted with in the applicaion or on IIS or using window service.
Basic and primary difference is, ASP.NET web service is designed to exchange SOAP messages over HTTP only while WCF Service can exchange message using any format (SOAP is default) over any transport protocol i.e. HTTP, TCP, MSMQ or NamedPipes etc.
What is the difference between web service and WCF?
Web service use only HTTP protocol while transferring data from one application to other application.
But WCF supports more protocols for transporting messages than ASP.NET Web services. WCF supports sending messages by using HTTP, as well as the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), named pipes, and Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ).
To develop a service in Web Service, we will write the following code
[WebService]
public class Service : System.Web.Services.WebService
{
[WebMethod]
public string Test(string strMsg)
{
return strMsg;
}
}
To develop a service in WCF, we will write the following code
[ServiceContract]
public interface ITest
{
[OperationContract]
string ShowMessage(string strMsg);
}
public class Service : ITest
{
public string ShowMessage(string strMsg)
{
return strMsg;
}
}
Web Service is not architecturally more robust. But WCF is architecturally
more robust and promotes best practices.
Web Services use XmlSerializer but WCF uses DataContractSerializer. Which is
better in performance as compared to XmlSerializer?
For internal (behind firewall) service-to-service calls we use the net:tcp
binding, which is much faster than SOAP.
WCF is 25%—50% faster than ASP.NET Web Services, and approximately 25%
faster than .NET Remoting.
When would I opt for one over the other?
WCF is used to communicate between other applications which has been developed on other platforms and using other Technology.
For example, if I have to transfer data from .net platform to other application which is running on other OS (like Unix or Linux) and they are using other transfer protocol (like WAS, or TCP) Then it is only possible to transfer data using WCF.
Here is no restriction of platform, transfer protocol of application while transferring the data between one application to other application.
Security is very high as compare to web service
The major difference is time-out, WCF Service has timed-out when there is no response, but web-service does not have this property.