I'm using Autofac with WCF integration in a project. I'm trying to figure out a way to lazy initialize data contract proxy collection properties to avoid transferring entire object graphs across the wire.
My current plan is to inject the WCF service in each deserialized data contract so they call the service, get the collection property data and initializes it.
My question is: Is there a way to tell Autofac to inject services in each data contract proxy deserialized at the client? Like some tweaking at the DataContractSerializer or something.
(No service locator, please...)
Thanks!
Unfortunately there is nothing like this available "out of the box" with Autofac. There is something similar in Autofac's MVC integration, but that's because MVC has a more specific integration point for that sort of thing (IActionInvoker).
You might be able to write a custom client-side behavior that intercepts certain known types (like collections) on the client and swaps in a lazy-initialized collection. There's a similar question here asking about how to swap the DataContractSerializer out at runtime. You could use a mechanism like that.
Related
I have a WCF service application (actually, it uses WCF Web API preview 5) that intercepts each request and extracts several header values passed from the client. The idea is that the 'interceptor' will extract these values and setup a ClientContext object that is then globally available within the application for the duration of the request. The server is stateless, so the context is per-call.
My problem is that the application uses IoC (Unity) for dependency injection so there is no use of singleton's, etc. Any class that needs to use the context receives it via DI.
So, how do I 'dynamically' create a new context object for each request and make sure that it is used by the container for the duration of that request? I also need to be sure that it is completely thread-safe in that each request is truly using the correct instance.
UPDATE
So I realize as I look into the suggestions below that part of my problem is encapsulation. The idea is that the interface used for the context (IClientContext) contains only read-only properties so that the rest of the application code doesn't have the ability to make changes. (And in a team development environment, if the code allows it, someone will inevitably do it.)
As a result, in my message handler that intercepts the request, I can get an instance of the type implementing the interface from the container but I can't make use of it. I still want to only expose a read-only interface to all other code but need a way to set the property values. Any ideas?
I'm considering implementing two interfaces, one that provides read-only access and one that allows me to initialize the instance. Or casting the resolved object to a type that allows me to set the values. Unfortunately, this isn't fool-proof either but unless someone has a better idea, it might be the best I can do.
Read Andrew Oakley's Blog on WCF specific lifetime managers. He creates a UnityOperationContextLifetimeManager:
we came up with the idea to build a Unity lifetime manager tied to
WCF's OperationContext. That way, our container objects would live
only for the lifetime of the request...
Configure your context class with that lifetime manager and then just resolve it. It should give you an "operation singleton".
Sounds like you need a Unity LifetimeManager. See this SO question or this MSDN article.
I wrote a couple of simple web methods (as a part of WCF service) that use a couple of (more complex) classes as input/returned parameters. Each web method attributed by [OperationContract], each data class attributed by [DataContract], each data field in the classes attributed by [DataMethod].
On the client side I can call these web methods by adding Service Reference.
All things are fine, but when I create an instance of some of the data classes above on client side, their constructors don't run.
Because it's a little complicate to initialize each instance, every time, I thought there is some way to initialize instances on client side by their own constructors.
Thanks in advance!
Ilan.
Methods exposed on data contracts (including constructors) in your service are only for service applications. Adding service reference will recreated only data structure of your data contract classes because service description is not able to describe logic and logic cannot be serialized.
All classes created with service reference are partial. You can create your own partial class and add your own custom constructors or you can share the assembly with data contracts between your service and client (but it will share all logic added to your data contract classes which is most often what you don't want). Sharing assembly will tightly couple your client and service.
I am developing an application that exposes a WCF service using the Message/Response pattern for service methods. The application is using Unity 2.0 for dependency injection and the Validation Application Block from MS Patterns & Practices. I've already gotten Unity tied into WCF using a custom HttpModule I picked up from several website a while back and everything works great.
In my service interface I have a method such as:
DoSomethingResponse DoSomething(DoSomethingRequest request)
I can easily attach VAB attributes to the service contract to verify that 'request' is never null but I also want to validate the contents of the request object.
To do this, I inject the validator into the DoSomethingRequest constructor and include an internally scoped IsValid property which handles interacting with the VAB validator. Unfortunately, this constructor doesn't get called because WCF deserializes the object and constructors aren't used.
Without getting into the merits of having the request object be a simple DTO versus having some server-side business logic, is there a way to cleanly inject dependencies into an object passed into WCF service as an argument?
If I'm understanding your issue correctly, you have properties on DoSomethingRequest that are instances of some other classes (data contracts) and you want to validate your data contracts as well? Is there some reason you can't just apply validation attributes to your data contract classes as well? This is the approach I've used when using WCF with VAB integration and it's worked out quite nicely.
So it turns out that adding the validation attributes to my DataContract actually works with no additional code. Unfortunately, it doesn't work if validation is defined in the app's config file (app.config or web.config).
As a result, I've stripped out the constructor injection and IsValid property on my DataContract (request object) which makes it more of an annotated DTO which I think is preferred anyway. I only wish that it would work the same with the XML configuration.
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".
Are DataContracts in WCF nothing more than DTOs? I was reading up about WCF and just had a couple of thoughts. It would be nice if some of the DataContract objects could have methods on them so that the client could do basic things with them before or after sending or retrieving back to the service.
To me this just doesn't seem possible or logical. I could be wrong, I learn new things everyday. So would the next best thing be to treat DataContracts as DTOs and provide libraries for the clients that would create real objects from the DTOs. Objects that would contain methods.
Any guidance would be really appreciated.
Not sure if I correctly understood your answer, so correct me if I'm wrong.
You can create a class library with your DataContracts classes and share the library between the client and server. In this way class marked [DataContract] will have methods (behavior) and [DataMember] fields/properties (state).
When you will pass such objects between client and server via WCF state will be persisted, but since class library is shared you will have methods on both sides.
DTOs that are decorated as DataContract classes are real objects. They can have methods in them, but the methods are not part of the serialization process.
The main time this will cause you issues is when:
you are relying on the generated proxy version of the DataContract objects (like when you have a Silverlight client calling a WCF service, or you are calling a third party service that you have no access to the code or its libraries). The generated proxy versions will not have the methods in them, just the DataMember properties. The way to get round that is to use objects from a shared library (as already mentioned by #Insomniac).
your properties in the DataContract objects are more than just a simple get/set operation, i.e. you may have included some logic to do other operations when a property value is set. In this case even the proxy generated version will not have that logic included. The ways to get round this is to either have the shared library, or have a partial class on the client side that extends the proxy generated class.
Sharing your classes between client and server projects is the way to go. Do not forget to check in your service reference that it tries to reuse types in referenced assemblies. That way, the service reference will not generate proxy classes for the shared objects.
WCF at its core is a message-based system: your client proxy catches the call to a method, wraps up the method and all its parameters into a serialized message, and send that across the network to the service to be processed.
So yes - in the end, all that goes from client to server in WCF is a serialized message - typically in XML format. You cannot serialize behavior or methods with this approach.