I am calling an external services in three steps: Compose the request, send it and receive the result, extract the result.
Now there are several external services that I will be using, building on different application stacks (SOAP and REST for instance. How would a good OO-design for this situation look like?
My specific concerns are: I could have interfaces for RequestBuilders and ResponseParsers, and a ServiceCaller that would delegate the obvious steps to implementations of the interfaces. But that means one could have a ServiceCaller that builds requests for service A, and expects responses in service' B format.
Whats a good OO pattern for that in general?
You can have a look at the Factory Method. The Create method of the factory accepts the type of the object required (Request of ServiceA) and returns an IRequest interface. All request implementation are required to implement IRequest. Once this layer has been built, you can create the service layer containing the builders for the appropriate Request and Response type.
Related
I have a WSDL file from a published ASMX web service. What I am after
is creating a mock service that mimics the real service for testing purposes.
From the WSDL, I used SvcUtil.exe to generate code. Apparently it also generates
the server side interface.
Well the issue is that it generates very chunky interfaces. For example, a method
int Add(int, int) is showing up in the generated .cs file as AddResponse Add(AddRequest). AddRequest and AddResponse have a AddRequestBody and AddRequestResponse and so on.
The issue is that, to implement, I need to create the body and response instances for each method, even when I just want to return a simple int result.
Why can't it generate the method signature properly? Is there a better way of generating WCF Server side interface/contracts from WSDL?
The message structure you are describing is caused by two things:
better interoperability across web service stacks and their programming models (RPC vs messaging);
flexibility to accommodate new parameters into existing web services.
You are not the first one to complain about it, or the last. It's a WSDL binding style commonly called the document/literal wrapped pattern. It produces document/literal web services and yet also supports an RPC programming style. It's very "WS interoperability friendly", so to speak...
The WS-I Basic profile specifies that the soap:body must have only one child element and in this case it's a wrapper for the operation name that's being invoked. The parameters of the call are packed into only one element as a best practice since it's more flexible to later changes. In case of WCF you usualy end up with a MessageContract which has one MessageBodyMember which wraps all the parameters.
Basically, you are seeing the results of web service battles fought long time ago.
Here is some extra reading on the subject (and that's just the tip of the iceberg):
Which style of WSDL should I use?
RPC/Literal and Freedom of Choice
My Take on the Document/Literal 'Wrapped' Idiom
I am writing an application that is consuming an in-house WCF-based REST service and I'll admit to being a REST newbie. Since I can't use the "Add Service Reference", I don't have ready-made proxy objects representing the return types from the service methods. So far the only way I've been able to work with the service is by sharing the assembly containing the data types exposed by the service.
My problem with this arrangment is that I see only two possibilities:
Implement DTOs (DataContracts) and expose those types from my service. I would still have to share an assembly but this approach would limit the types contained in the assembly to the service contract and DTOs. I don't like to use DTOs just for the sake of using them, though as they add another layer of abstraction and processing time to convert from domain object to DTO and vice versa. Plus, if I want to have business rules, validation, etc. on the client, I'd have to share the domain objects anyways, so is the added complexity necessary.
Support serialization of my domain objects, expose those types and share that assembly. This would allow me to share business and validation logic with the client but it also exposes parts of my domain objects to the client that are meant only for the service app.
Perhaps an example would help the discussion...
My client application will display a list of documents that is obtained from the REST service (a GET operation). The service returns an array of DocumentInfo objects (lightweight, read-only representation of a Document).
When the user selects one of the items, the client retrieves the full Document object from the REST service (GET by id) and displays a data entry form so the user can modify the object. We would want validation rules for a rich user experience.
When the user commits the changes, the Document object is submitted to the REST service (a PUT operation) where it is persisted to the back-end data store.
If the state of the Document allows, the user may "Publish" the Document. In this case, the client POSTs a request to the REST service with the Document.ID value and the service performs the operation by retrieving the server-side Document domain object and calling the Publish method. The Publish method should not be available to the client application.
As I see it, my Document and DocumentInfo objects would have to be in a shared assembly. Doing this makes Document.Publish available to the client. One idea to hide it would be to make the method internal and add an InternalsVisibleTo attribute that allows my service app to call the method and not the client but this seems "smelly."
Am I on the right track or completely missing something?
The classes you use on the server should not be the same classes you use on the client (apart from during the data transfer itself). The best approach is to create a package (assembly/project) containing DTOs, and share these between the server and the client. You did mention that you don't want to create DTO's for the sake of it, but it is best practice. The performance impact of adding extra layers is negligible, and layering actually helps make your application easier to develop and maintain (avoiding situations like yours where the client has access to server code).
I suggest starting with the following packages:
Service: Resides on server only, exposes the service and contains server application logic.
DTO: Resides on both server and client. Contains simple classes which contain data which need to be passed between server and client. Classes have no code apart from properties. These are short lived objects which survive long enough only to transfer data.
Repository: Resides on client only. Calls the server, and turns Model objects into DTO's (and vice versa).
Model: Resides on client only. Contains classes which represent business objects and relationships. Model objects stay in memory throughout the life of the application.
Your client application code should call into Repository to get Model objects (you might also consider looking into MVVM if your not sure how to go about this).
If your service code is sufficiently complex that it needs access to Model classes, you should create a separate Model package (obviously give it a different name) - the only classes which should exist both on server and client are DTO classes.
I thought that I'd post the approach I took while giving credit to both Greg and Jake for helping guide me down the path.
While Jake is correct that deserializing the data on the client can be done with any type as long as it implements the same data contract, enforcing this without WSDL can be a bit tricky. I'm in an environment where other developers will be working with my solution both to support and maintain the existing as well as creating new clients that consume my service. They are used to "Add Service Reference" and going.
Greg's points about using different objects on the client and the server were the most helpful. I was trying to minimize duplicate by sharing my domain layer between the client and the server and that was the root of my confusion. As soon as I separated these into two distinct applications and looked at them in isolation, each with their own use cases, the picture became clearer.
As a result, I am now sharing a Contracts assembly which contains my service contracts so that a client can easily create a channel to the server (using WCF on the client-side) and data contracts representing the DTOs passed between client and service.
On the client, I have ViewModel objects which wrap the Model objects (data contracts) for the UI and use a service agent class to communicate with the service using the service contracts from the shared assembly. So when the user clicks the "Publish" button in the UI, the controller (or command in WPF/SL) calls the Publish method on the service agent passing in the ID of the document to publish. The service agent relays the request to the REST API (Publish operation).
On the server, the REST API is implemented using the same service contracts. In this case, the service works with my domain services, repositories and domain objects to carry out the tasks. So when the Publish service operation is invoked, the service retrieves the Document domain object from the DocumentRepository, calls the Publish method on the object which updates the internal state of the object and then the service passes the updated object to the Update method of the repository to persist the changes.
I am pleased with the outcome as I believe this gives me a more robust and extensible architecture to work with. I can change the ViewModels as needed to support the UI with no concern over poluting the service(s) and, likewise, change the internal implementation of the service operations (domain layer) without affecting the client application(s). All that binds the two are the contracts they share. Pretty clean.
You can serialize your domain objects and then de-serialize them into different types on the client. Both types need to implement the same data contract. All serializable types have at least a default data contract that includes all public read/write properties and fields.
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 have 2 contracts (cA & cB) implemented by a single WCF service with 2 endpoints (epA & epB).
This is not for security purposes, but purely for reasons of clarity/organization, I'd like to only "see" ContractA's operations when I discover the service via endpointA; and likewise, only see ContractB's operations via endpointB.
I don't need to "protect" these operations per se. The scenario is such that any given client only needs one "side" of the service, never both (but, the operations themselves share resources, so it makes sense to have a single service rather than 2 services).
It seems that any given service basically gets 1 WSDL, ergo all operations are exposed to all endpoints. Is that the way it works, or is there a way to "shape" an endpoint by occluding operations not defined by the endpoints contract?
By default, you're right - one service implementation class gets one WSDL which contains all service methods (from all service contracts) that this service class implements.
There are no ways present (as far as I know) to "shape" the WSDL in any (easy) way - WCF does offer ways to get into the process of creating the WSDL (statically or dynamically), but those aren't for the faint of heart. It would be much easier for you to just split the implementation of the service contracts into two separate classes and then you'd have two separate services, separate WSDL's and all.
Marc is absolutelly right. I'm just adding why this happens in WCF. In WCF all metadata related functionality are based around service metadata behavior and mex endpoint. Both these features are defined on service level. So you can't take higher granuality (unless you write a lot of custom code) and specify metadata per endpoint.
WCF service (class) is directly mapped to wsdl:service element which exposes each contract as separate wsdl:port (in WCF known as endpoint). This is the main point in answering your question. If you don't want your second contract in that wsdl:service you can't implement it in the same class.
You have mentioned that your service contracts share resources. In that case your WCF service probably also contains business logic. That is a reason for your problems. The good design for implementing WCF services is to create them only as wrappers around separate business logic classes.
i have recently been involved in developing a WCF service which acts as a kind of multicast relay (i.e. accepts some incoming data, does some processing and then sends it off to multiple other external services). this service (which i will refer to as "my service") is fed data by a second internal service.
this data is going to be relayed from my service as XML held in a string. therefore my service could simply accept a string as an parameter to a method request - but this is not ideal as we lose type safety.
the second service has a class that encapsulates all of the information which my service requires to be processed, and eventually relayed to the external services.
the second service exposes this class in it's data contract. Ideally, in order to maintain type safety, and without requiring lots of changes to the second service's implementation, i should accept this type of class as an argument to my service operation.
what would be the best way for me to say in my datacontract that i require this type of class without duplicating code? could i add a service reference to this second class, and then use the proxy class which is created in my data contract?
i just can't get my head around this, even though it seems like a trivial problem!
cheers for any help!
If you are trying to avoid duplication of classes, put your class declaration in its own assembly and share that dll between all parties in the WCF Service. When you create your service reference you can choose which assemblies are shared (assuming you use the VS GUI service utility).
The use of a proxy class might be a good avenue as well. If you expose your main data class as a data contract, then create a proxy of that, the proxy will have a version of the exposed class that can be used by your other services.