Is there a clever way to structure my WCF service, such that I can implement a service once and have it return different data contracts for different callers? (i.e. mobile clients)
We have already developed a set of services which are consumed by a desktop application and are now building a mobile version of the application. The problem is that the data transfer objects (DTOs) returned are too big and contain unnecessary members for the mobile application. With it going over a mobile network we would like to cut these out to improve performance, however the implementation of the services will be identical.
Ideas we have so far:
Setting
EmitDefault to false and then not mapping all properties on the
DTO for mobile callers (we are using automapper so may be able to do something
with multiple mapping configurations)
Inherited DTO types for desktop that extend the basic mobile type using the KnownType attribute.
Just building a separate service entirely, but making sure all logic is in a shared business service layer (which it should be already)
Does anyone know if there is any guidance out there for this requirement?
Personally I would keep the implementations separate. As you point out, each set of clients - mobile and desktop - have different requirements. You can share the contracts for your service, just have different implementations / services. This will allow to specialise the services for each client, and makes it easier to extend, modify and test.
Related
Setting: I'm developing an intranet tool set for my department, the main point of which is to centrally manage data quality and accessibility, but also to automate and scale some partial-processes.
Problem: I currently have my business logic in a CLR assembly, which is available on my SQL-Server for other CLR assemblies that run automated ETL directly on the SQL-Server. I am also developing an intranet site, which also needs the code information in that business logic assembly, but referencing the CLR assembly code has been working out sub-optimally, in terms of deployment and code maintenance. Also another department has voiced interest in using the code-base and data for their own intranet site.
Question(s): I've read quite a few Q&A(1,2,3,4,...) on SO to this topic, but I find it a very encompassing, so I'll try to ask questions for a more specific case(i.e. a single BL and Data Access code base)
Is a WCF service the solution I want? All my potential service clients run on the same server, is there maybe another way to reference the same code base both in CLR assembly and website projects? I don't need support for different platforms(ex. Java) - everything is .NET(yay for in-house progr!) - is WCF overkill?
Can code from a WCF service be used like a class library, or do I need to program a new way for accessing classes/methods from the service?
Separation of Development, Test and Productive instances?
Can a WCF service be updated while clients are accessing it, or do I need to schedule maintenance windows? When I update the service, do I need to update the client as well in some way?
Can I dynamically set the service reference, like I currently am dynamically setting the database connection string, depending on if StageConfig = dev, test, or prod?
My CLR assemblies are written for .Net 3.5, but the websites for .NET 4.0, will that pose a problem?
What minimum set of .NET service architecture programming do I need to know to accomplish this? I'll learn more about WCF with time, but I need to evaluate architecting effort and weigh it against getting things done(feature requests). Does the MS tutorial get me the desired skill?
I appreciate answers to only single questions, if you feel you know something, I'll +1 whatever helps me get closer to a complete answer.
OK, so you want to make your code enterprise-wide. There are two fundamental problems to talk about when you want to do this, so I'll structure the answer that way:
You have to understand what WCF is all about.
You have to manage your dependencies correctly.
What WCF is about
WCF is a way of doing RPC/RMI (Remote procedure call/remote method invocation) which means that some client code can call code that is located somewhere else through the network.
A callable WCF service is determined by the ABC triplet:
The service specification is implemented as a .NET interface with a "ServiceContract" attribute. This is the Contract ("C")
The "location" of the service is determined by a pair : Address ("A") and Binding ("B"). The Binding determines the protocol suite to be used for communication between client and server (NetPipe, TCP, HTTP, ...). The Address is a URI following the scheme determined by the Binding ("net.pipe", "net.tcp", "http", ...)
When the client code calls a WCF service at a specific Address, with a specfic Binding, and a specific Contract (which must match what the server at the specific Address and the specific Binding is delivering), WCF generates a proxy object implementing the interface of the contract.
The program delivering the service is any .NET executable. It has to generate one or many WCF Hosts, that will register objects or classes that implement the service contract, and asociate each delivered service to a specific Address and Binding. (possibly many thereof)
The configuration can be through the app .config file, in which you will be specifying ABC triplets and assotiate these triplets with a name that you will use in your application. You can also do it programmatically, which is very easy.
WCF does not address your problem of deploying your application, or the configuration of addresses and binding. It just addresses the problem of letting two executables communicate with each other with strongly-typed objects (through a specific interface). Sharing the service configuration is up to you. You may use a shared .config file on a Windows share, or even set up a LDAP server that will deliver all the data you need to find your service (namely A and B).
Managing your dependencies correctly
In your scenario, there are three actors that want to use your WCF infrastructure:
Your SQLCLR assembly, which will be a client.
The intranet site, which will be another client.
The service host, which will be a server.
The bare minimum number of assemblies will be 4. One for each of the aforementioned actors, and one specifying the contract, which will be used by all three actors. It should contain the following things:
The interface specifying the contract.
All types needed by the interface, which will of course be sent through the network, and therefore must be serializable.
There should be nothing more in it, or else, it will be a maintenance nightmare.
Answer to your questions
I hope that my answer is clear. Let's sum up the answers to your questions.
Is a WCF service the solution I want? All my potential service clients
run on the same server, is there maybe another way to reference the
same code base both in CLR assembly and website projects? I don't need
support for different platforms(ex. Java) - everything is .NET(yay for
in-house progr!) - is WCF overkill?
Everything is overkill. WCF is rather easy to use and scales down very well.
Can code from a WCF service be used like a class library, or do I need
to program a new way for accessing classes/methods from the service?
Setting up a WCF on existing code requires only the implementation of an additional class, and some code creating the Hosts which will serve the aforementioned class.
Calling a WCF service requires the creation of a Channel, which is a .NET (proxy) object implementing the interface.
So basically, your business code remains in the same state.
Separation of Development, Test and Productive instances?
WCF does not take care of that. Different environments, different service addresses. You have to take care of this yourself.
Can a WCF service be updated while clients are accessing it, or do I need to schedule maintenance windows?
It depends on your maintenance policy. Kill the serving process and launch the new version is the basic upgrade mechanism.
When I update the service, do I need to update the client as well in some way?
Provided that you manage your dependencies correctly like I sketched in the previous section, you need to update the clients only if the service specification (the interface) changes.
Can I dynamically set the service reference, like I currently am dynamically setting the database connection string, depending on if StageConfig = dev, test, or prod?
You have to manage that, probably by etting Address and Binding for a service programmatically.
My CLR assemblies are written for .Net 3.5, but the websites for .NET 4.0, will that pose a problem?
Provided that you manage your dependencies correctly like I sketched in the previous section, the only constraint will be the minimum CLR version required by the "contract" assembly.
What minimum set of .NET service architecture programming do I need to know to accomplish this? I'll learn more about WCF with time, but I need to evaluate architecting effort and weigh it against getting things done(feature requests). Does the MS tutorial get me the desired skill?
You'll need the result of these exercises:
Make two executables, a client and a server, that will communicate
through a WCF contract located in a separate DLL. The configuration
should be located in the app .config file.
Make two executables, a client and a server, that will communicate
through a WCF contract
located in a separate DLL. The configuration should be determined programatically.
Try to send a serializable class as a parameter to your service.
Try to send a serializable class as a return value of your service.
After that, you'll need to think about the best/cheapest way to share the Addresses and Bindings of your services.
Hope it helps.
I have an class library called ServiceLayer which acts as a repository for a ASP.NET MVC application This service layer has a references to a WCF Service called ProfileService which contains Profile methods to perform CRUD operations on a database etc.
I now need to allow mobile devices to communicate with my application so I have created another WCF Service called ProfileService. This service has a reference to the ServiceLayer class library and makes calls to it to undertake Profile operations.
Now this is quite confusing as I now have 2 ProfileServices. The first communicating with my database etc and exposing itself to my service layer. The second communicating with my service layer and exposing itself to mobile devices.
What is the best way to name your services in a SOA environment to avoid confusion of which type is which? especially when mapping between types.
I may also want to create another service which acts as an API to users of the system. What would I name this service ProfileAPI?? I know each ProfileService is in its own namespace but this doesnt help with readability when creating AutoMapperSettings or performing manual mapping.
So if anybody out there knows of a good way to name services in this environment it would be much appreciated.
You are looking for a Service Facade
You would end up with a Facade, which is just a specialized interface into your real service. You would define the different services as needed (mobile, users, database)
I have just started evaluating whether or not I should be using OData influenced wcf data services or a standard WCF service application as the primary data source for Silverlight applications. I would like your thoughts on which is a better way under what situation/circumstance. What is lighter over the wire, easier to maintain, etc.
What I have gathered so far is:
There are no Wcf data service templates in VS2010 that I know of, and I will need to create a asp.net web project first and then add a wcf data service, so its going to affect how I structure my projects.
WCF Data services expose actual table names over the service. I don't know yet of a way I can alias them and I'm not sure its a good idea to let the world know my table structure
In a standard wcf service I will need to write linq queries against the EF or Domain service classes on the service side, while in a data service I can move that processing logic to the client.
At first glance examining the classes exposed by the wcf data services seem easier to read and understand than those exposed by the EF
Do add your thoughts on this..
Thanks for your time.
There are no Wcf data service
templates in VS2010 that I know of,
Not project template - just an item template (for use inside an ASP.NET web site or web app). WCF DataServices are very tightly coupled to HTTP, so they only make sense in a web site/app.
WCF Data services expose actual table
names over the service.
NO ! At least not necessarily. The whole point of EF is that you can decouple the actual physical structure of your database from the (conceptual) model that gets exposed. You can totally rename entities, you can map several entities onto a single table, split up an entity over several tables, you can leave out attributes - anything you like!
At first glance examining the classes
exposed by the wcf data services seem
easier to read and understand than
those exposed by the EF
I doubt it - because by default, WCF Data Services will use a Linq-to-SQL or EF model as their basis, really. You can make that as simple or as complicated as you like.
Using a "regular" WCF service allows you to use the netTcpBinding for much faster performance (thanks to binary message encoding vs. textual messages for other bindings), when using your Silverlight 4 app in a company-internal network (doesn't work for internet scenarios) - not something you can do with WCF DataServices.
The main difference in my opinion is the SOAP vs. REST difference:
SOAP (traditional WCF) is oriented towards methods - you think and design your system in terms of methods - things you can do (GetCustomer, SaveOrder etc.)
REST (the WCF DataServices approach) is all about resources, e.g. you have your resources and collections of resources (e.g. Customers) and you expose those out to the world, with standard HTTP verbs (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) instead of separate specific methods that you define
So both approaches have their pros and cons. I guess the most important question is: what kind of app are you creating, and what kind of user audience are you targetting?
Update:
for intranet / internal apps, I would think the advantage of a netTcpBinding (binary encoding) would justify using a classic WCF service - also for data-intensive apps, I personally find a method-based approach (GetCustomer, SaveCustomer) to be easier to use and understand
for a public-facing app, using HTTP and being as interoperable as possible is probably your major concern, so in that scenario, I'd probably favor the WCF Data Service - easy to use, easy to understand URLs for the user
I was thinking about the architecture of a web application that I am planning on building and I found myself thinking a lot about a core part of the application. Since I will want to create, for example, an android application to access it, I was already thinking about having an API.
Given the fact that I will want to have an external API to my application from day one, is it a good idea to use that API as an interface between the interface layer (web) and the business layer of my application? This means that even the main interface of my application would access the data through the API. What are the downsides of this approach? performance?
In more general terms, if one is building a web application that is likely to need to be accessed in different ways, is it a good architectural design to have an API (web service) as the interface between the interface layer and business layer? Is REST a good "tool" for that?
Sounds like you've got two questions there, so my answer is in two parts.
Firstly, should you use an API between the interface layer and the business layer? This is certainly a valid approach, one that I'm using in my current project, but you'll have to decide on the benefits yourself, because only you know your project. Possibly the largest factor to consider is whether there will be enough different clients accessing the business layer to justify the extra development effort in developing an API? Often that simply means more than 1 client, as the benefits of having an API will be evident when you come to release changes or bug fixes. Also consider the added complexity, the extra code maintenance overhead and any benefits that might come from separating the interface and business layers such as increased testability.
Secondly, if you implement an API, should you use REST? REST is an architecture, which says as much about how the remainder of your application is developed as it does the API. It's no good defining resources at the API level that don't translate to the Business Layer. Rest tends to be a good approach when you want lots of people to be able to develop against your API (like NetFlix for example). In the case of my current project, we've gone for XML over HTTP, because we don't need the benefits that Rest generally offers (or SOAP for that matter).
In general, the rule of thumb is to implement the simplest solution that works, and without coding yourself into a corner, develop for today's requirements, not tomorrow's.
Chris
You will definitely need need a Web Service layer if you're going to be accessing it from a native client over the Internet.
There are obviously many approaches and solutions to achieve this however I consider the correct architectural guideline to follow is to have a well-defined Service Interface on the Server which is accessed by the Gateway on the client. You would then use POCO DTO's (Plain old DTO's) to communicate between the endpoints. The DTO's main purpose is to provide optimal representation of your web service over the wire, it also allows you to avoid having to deal with serialization as it should be handled transparently by the Client Gateway and Service Interface libraries.
It really depends on how to big your project / app is whether or not you want want to go through the effort to mapping your DTO's to the client and server domain models. For large applications the general approach would be on the client to map your DTO's to your UI Models and have your UI Views bind to that. On the server you would map your DTO's to your domain models and depending on the implementation of the service persist that.
REST is an architectural pattern which for small projects I consider an additional overhead/complexity as it is not as good programattic fit compared to RPC / Document Centric web services. In not so many words the general idea of REST is to develop your services around resources. These resources can have multiple representations which your web service should provide depending on the preferred Content-Type indicated by your HTTP Client (i.e. in the HTTP ACCEPT HEADER). The canonical urls for your web services should also be logically formed (e.g. /customers/reports/1 as opposed to /GetCustomerReports?Id=1) and your web services would ideally return the list of 'valid states your client can enter' with each response. Basically REST is a nice approach promoting a loosely-coupled architecture and re-use however requires more effort to 'adhere' to than standard RPC/Document based web services whose benefits are unlikely to be visible in small projects.
If you're still evaluating what web service technology you should use, you may want to consider using my open source web framework as it is optimized for this task. The DTO's that you use to define your web services interface with can be re-used on the client (which is not normally the case) to provide a strongly-typed interface where all the serialization is taken for you. It also has the added benefit of enabling each web service you create to be called by SOAP 1.1/1.2, XML and JSON web services automatically without any extra configuration so you can choose the most optimal end point for every client scenario, i.e. Native Desktop or Web App, etc.
My recent preference, which is based on J2EE6, is to implement the business logic in session beans and then add SOAP and RESTful web services as needed. It's very simple to add the glue to implement the web services around those session beans. That way I can provide the service that makes the most sense for a particular user application.
We've had good luck doing something like this on a project. Our web services mainly do standard content management, with a high proportion of reads (GET) to writes (PUT, POST, DELETE). So if your logic layer is similar, this is a very reasonable approach to consider.
In one case, we have a video player app on Android (Motorola Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, ...) which is supported by a set of REST web services off in the cloud. These expose a catalog of video on demand content, enable video session setup and tear-down, handle bookmarking, and so on. REST worked out very well for this.
For us one of the key advantages of REST is scalability: since RESTful GET responses may be cached in the HTTP infrastructure, many more clients can be served from the same web application.
But REST doesn't seem to fit some kinds of business logic very well. For instance in one case I wrapped a daily maintenance operation behind a web service API. It wasn't obvious what verb to use, since this operation read data from a remote source, used it to do a lot of creates and updates to a local database, then did deletes of old data, then went off and told an external system to do stuff. So I settled on making this a POST, making this part of the API non-RESTful. Even so, by having a web services layer on top of this operation, we can run the daily script on a timer, run it in response to some external event, and/or have it run as part of a higher level workflow.
Since you're using Android, take a look at the Java Restlet Framework. There's a Restlet edition supporting Android. The director of engineering at Overstock.com raved about it to me a few years ago, and everything he told us was true, it's a phenomenally well-done framework that makes things easy.
Sure, REST could be used for that. But first ask yourself, does it make sense? REST is a tool like any other, and while a good one, not always the best hammer for every nail. The advantage of building this interface RESTfully is that, IMO, it will make it easier in the future to create other uses for this data - maybe something you haven't thought of yet. If you decide to go with a REST API your next question is, what language will it speak? I've found AtomPub to be a great way for processes/applications to exchange info - and it's very extensible so you can add a lot of custom metadata and yet still be eaily parsed with any Atom libraries. Microsoft uses AtomPub in it's cloud [Azure] platform to talk between the data producers and consumers. Just a thought.
Typical scenario. We use old-school XML Web Services internally for communicating between a server farm and several distributed and local clients. No third parties involved, only our applications used by ourselves and our customers.
We're currently pondering moving from XML WS to a WCF/object-based model and have been experimenting with various approaches. One of them involves transferring the domain objects/aggregates directly over the wire, possibly invoking DataContract attributes on them.
By using IExtensibleDataObject and a DataContract using the Order property on the DataMembers, we should be able to cope with simple property versioning issues (remember, we control all clients and can easily force-update them).
I keep hearing that we should use dedicated, transfer-only Data Transfer Objects (DTOs) over the wire.
Why? Is there still a reason to do so? We use the same domain model on the server side and client side, of course, prefilling collections, etc. only when deemed right and "necessary." Collection properties utilize the service locator principle and IoC to invoke either an NHibernate-based "service" to fetch data directly (on the server side), and a WCF "service" client on the client side to talk to the WCF server farm.
So - why do we need to use DTOs?
Having worked with both approaches (shared domain objects and DTOs) I'd say the big problem with shared domain objects is when you don't control all clients, but from my past experiences I'd usually use DTOs unless it development speed were of the essence.
If there's any chance that you won't always be in control of the clients then I'd definately recommend DTOs, because as soon as you share your domain objects with someone else's client application you start tying your internals to someone else's dev cycle.
I've also found DTOs useful when working in a versioned service environment, which allowed us to radically change the internals of our app but still accept calls to the old versions of our service interfaces.
Finally, if you have a lot of client applications it might also be beneficial to use DTOs as you're then protected with an easily versionable service.
In my experience DTOs are most useful for:
Strictly defining what will be sent over the wire and having a type specifically devoted to that definition.
Isolating the rest of your application, client and server, from future changes.
Interoperability with non-.Net systems. DTOs certainly aren't a requirement, but they make it easier to design "safe" types.
In your scenario these design features may not matter that much. I've used WCF with both strict DTOs and shared Domain Objects and in both scenarios it worked great. The only thing I noticed when sending Domain Objects over the wire was that I tended to send more data (and in unexpected ways) then I needed to. This was likely more due to my lack of experience with WCF than anything else; but it's something you should definitely be wary of should you choose to go that route.