We have a windows service that is self-hosting a WCF Data Service, using the DataServiceHost class. Everything is working just fine, but we would like to hook up some HTTPModules to the service, if possible. One of the HTTP Modules would be for custom basic authentication, the other for auditing (including responses, which is why an HTTP Module works so well for this).
Keep in mind that we are running as a regular windows service, so we have no web.config, the service is not hosted by IIS, and it is not an ASP.Net application.
So, my questions are:
Is it possible to have an HTTP Module listen on a self-hosted WCF data service?
If this is not possible, what options would I have that are similiar to the power of an HTTP Module?
WCF doesn't operate on the same request pipeline as standard ASP.NET applications, although you can take advantage of a number of ASP.NET features (like session) if you configure your service for ASP.NET compatibility.
[AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode = AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Required)]
However, it looks like you just need something that will let you jump into the pipeline the way that HTTPModules do for an ASP.NET Application. That being the case, there are plenty of options. You can check out this page for a lot of samples.
You mentioned authentication, and there are plenty of options built into WCF that can save you from rolling your own solution. Check it out here.
Related
I've implemented an OData service using ASP.NET WebAPI. I also have some existing web methods in a seperate WCF project which is hosted in an ASP.NET Web Application.
By copying some bits of web config around and copying a couple of code files I've managed to get the WCF methods hosted in the WebAPI project.
Everything seems to be working but I've got a nagging doubt I'm doing something horribly wrong that's going to break when I least expect it.
Is this a good idea?
Depends on your anticipated call volume. The only problem I can think of with this is that incoming WCF requests will be serviced from the same dispatcher thread pool as the OData service. This makes it more likely that you will suffer availability based issues on either endpoint.
I've been looking into the possibility of using ASP.NET Web API and SignalR in a self-hosted application, and I noticed that the ASP.NET Web API self-hosted implementation uses WCF, and the SignalR self-hosted implementation uses System.Net.HttpListener. This makes it a little harder to come up with a combined self-hosting solution, but it does get me wondering why the different project teams would use different approaches.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach? Is there any particular reason why SignalR could not use WCF self-hosting, or Web API could not use HttpListener?
EDIT: I understand that Web API self-hosting provides a more complete stack than SignalR, my question is more about why you would choose a WCF implementation over System.Net.HttpListener when implementing your own self-hosting solution.
Web API self host provides entire HTTP stack so it's much much richer than System.Net.HttpListener.
SignalR uses that to purely open a communication window for its own purposes.
So yeah for now, you need to run them in parallel on different ports.
In the future, with OWIN, you will have everything under one roof.
EDIT: there was actually an issue similar to yours raised on SignalR github, and the answer was pretty much what I just said - https://github.com/SignalR/SignalR/issues/277
Just so we are on the same page, The WCF Self-host that Web API Self host uses, does use HttpListener under the covers. However, I think I may have found a major downside to the WCF Self-host.
I have not confirmed this yet, but it seems that when you use Web API Self Host, the base address you provide is not translated directly into a HttpListener prefix. It seems like WCF translates the base address and wildcards the host.
This means that the WCF self-host will respond to any host on the specified port. This means that you cannot run a Web API Self hosted service side by side with IIS on the same port using a different host name.
This might be the reason that SignalR decided to scrap the WCF Self-Host and use HTTPListener directly.
While you can use the WCF stack to host the services yourself, you may want to consider the "IIS 7.0 Hostable Web Core". It has the benefit of running IIS in your user process. Using this approach, you can have several applications running on the same port, irrespective of the technologies.
If you are interested, you can look at:
Host your own Web Server in your application using IIS 7.0 Hostable Web Core
Creating Hosted Web Core Applications
This all assumes you are running Vista or later...
I have an asp.net 4 application that hosts a WCF REST service via WebServiceHost...
WebServiceHostFactory factory = new WebServiceHostFactory();
routes.Add(new ServiceRoute("mss", factory, typeof(ModuleStorage)));
My application has a custom authentication module and requires IIS Anonymous access. I also have Windows Integrated so that I can debug my application.
The issue I am having is the WebHttpBinding created by the WebServiceHost does not support having two authentication methods enabled in IIS. I can turn off Win. Auth. and it works but I can not debug.
So my question is... Can I enable WebHttpBinding to support both or can I somehow enable debugging without Win. Auth.
This service must be hosted as part of the application and I need a way to debug it.
Try debugging WCF REST Service using Fiddler, see the following links for more informations :
http://www.codeproject.com/Tips/213007/Debug-WCF-REST-Service
Depends what you are trying to debug. You could always trace the WCF service using SvcTraceViewer. Here is the config you can use on the server.
I ended up using ASP.NET Web API. I have to say so far I am a big fan!
http://www.asp.net/web-api
I currently have a HttpModule that generates a unique ID per external client request, appends it to the IIS log, and adds it to the HttpContext.Items collection in order to pass in on the thw web service.
I am currently replacing the web service with a WCF service (still hosted under IIS). I can successfully do the same process by enabling AspNet compatibility, but I would prefer not to. Is there any way to pass data from a HttpModule to say the OperationContext of the WCF service without enabling AspNet compatibility?
This is what MSDN has to say,
HttpModule extensibility: The WCF hosting infrastructure intercepts WCF requests when the PostAuthenticateRequest event is raised and does not return processing to the ASP.NET HTTP pipeline. Modules that are coded to intercept requests at later stages of the pipeline do not intercept WCF requests.
I suggest you go through this MSDN documentation completely to understand how ASP.Net and WCF coexist
I am new to WCF and Web Services in general. What are the improvements that WCF brings to the table? Can anyone give a side-by-side example of a traditional web service and the same one written using WCF and point out the differences and advantages?
Duplicate question Moving ASP.net webservices to WCF
EDIT: Think i found the answer you where looking for a side-by-side code based comparison and even better it's from MSDN: Comparing ASP.NET Web Services to WCF Based on Development
There are several related questions:
Difference between aspnet web method and wcf webservice
Benfits of using WCF
Moving aspnet web services to wcf
However you asked for a side by side comparison in which case i think Sam's Wcf vs ASMX blog article is more what you are looking for.
Quoting ad-verbatim (let me know if i should just leave it as a link):
WCF vs. ASMX
Protocols Support
WCF
HTTP
TCP
Named pipes
MSMQ
Custom
UDP
ASMX
HTTP only
Hosting
ASMX
Can be hosted only with HttpRuntime on IIS.
WCF
A WCF component can be hosted in any kind of environment in .NET 3.0, such as a console application, Windows application, or IIS.
WCF services are known as 'services' as opposed to web services because you can host services without a web server.
Self-hosting the services gives you the flexibility to use transports other than HTTP.
WCF Backwards Compatibility
The purpose of WCF is to provide a unified programming model for distributed applications.
Backwards compatibility
WCF takes all the capabilities of the existing technology stacks while not relying upon any of them.
Applications built with these earlier technologies will continue to work unchanged on systems with WCF installed.
Existing applications are able to upgrade with WCF
New WCF transacted application will work with existing transaction application built on System.Transactions
WCF & ASMX Integration
WCF can use WS-* or HTTP bindings to communicate with ASMX pages
Limitations of ASMX:
An ASMX page doesn’t tell you how to deliver it over the transports and to use a specific type of security. This is something that WCF enhances quite significantly.
ASMX has a tight coupling with the HTTP runtime and the dependence on IIS to host it. WCF can be hosted by any Windows process that is able to host the .NET Framework 3.0.
ASMX service is instantiated on a per-call basis, while WCF gives you flexibility by providing various instancing options such as Singleton, private session, per call.
ASMX provides the way for interoperability but it does not provide or guarantee end-to-end security or reliable communication.
WCF is far wider in scope than ASP.Net webservices.
WCF can run in any application. APS.Net webservices only run in IIS.
WCF supports models like ReST, Remoting, SOAP, MSMQ etc. ASP.Net only supports SOAP
WCF is more configurable.
WCF supports a more declarative way of programming. You can get more done with less code.
ASP.NET Web Services are pretty much just that. Web Services. They're SOAP/WSDL based and provide their services only to the web.
WCF Services offer a much more flexible framework. For instance, depending on how the service is defined, it can be a Web Service hosted in IIS which serialized its data via XML and uses the REST model...or it can be a Remote Windows Service that is hosted in it's own process and serializes its data via binary. All of this is achieved using the different Service/Data contracts in WCF.
In short...you can make a WCF service look almost identical to a .NET 2.0 Web Service fairly easily but, with a little work, you can do a WHOLE LOT MORE.