Our third party API provides two different web services but have identical methods, models. Nevertheless they only differ on URIs (Web Service Path, Action Path [Operation Contract].
So I have decided to:
Generate the code from their wsdl using VS.
Edit the namespacing to use the same and to be "Common" and not use the service reference instead i use the Reference.cs edited code.
Create a new proxy that will handle the correct URI of the service to use (wrapped the Reference.cs inside of it).
Now, I having an issue with the "Method1", because they have different Action Name. Having an exception of:
"Server did not recognize the value of
HTTP Header SOAPAction:
http://www.api.com/service/Method1"
I just notice that it the correct action name is: http://www.api.com/service1/Method1
The question now is, is there any configuration or behavior that i can use to correct the action name for each method for each service?
Or as long as they keep on adding contracts for each implementation of the API, i should also keep on adding the contracts for each, and just use the ChannelFactory for this?
Please help, thanks.
I ended up directly using the ChannelFactory when faced with the same problem
In my implementation, I had a base interface that had all the common methods to the 2 APIs. Then I had 2 seperate intefaces - one for each 3-rd party API version - that inherits from the base interface and adds methods and [OperationContract] attributes that varied between the two implementations.
When instantianting ChannelFactory<> I used one of the child interfaces. Helped to keep the consumer code clean and maintainable
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'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 am trying to solve a problem where i have a WCF system that i have built a custom Host, Factory host, instance providers and service behaviors to do authentication and dependency injection.
However I have come up with a problem at the authorisation level as I would like to do authorisation at the level of the method being called.
For example
[OperationContract]
[WebGet(UriTemplate = "/{ConstituentNumber}/")]
public Constituent GetConstituent(string ConstituentNumber)
{
Authorisation.Factory.Instance.IsAuthorised(MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name, WebOperationContext.Current.IncomingRequest.Headers["Authorization"]);
return constituentSoapService.GetConstituentDetails(ConstituentNumber);
}
Basically I now have to copy the Call to IsAuthorised across every web method I have. This has two problems.
It is not very testable. I Have extracted the dependecies as best that I can. But this setup means that I have to mock out calls to the database and calls to the
WebOperationContext.
I Have to Copy that Method over and over again.
What I would like to know is, is there a spot in the WCF pipeline that enables me to know which method is about to be called. Execute the authorisation request. and then execute the method based on the true false value of the authorisation response.
Even better if i can build an attribute that will say how to evaluate the method.
One possible way to do what you want might be by intercepting requests with a custom IDispatchMessageInspector (or similar WCF extension point).
The trick there, however, is that all you get is the raw message, but not where it will be processed (i.e. the method name). With a bit of work, however, it should be possible to build a map of URIs/actions and the matching method names (this is how you'd do it for SOAP, though haven't tried it for WebGet/WebInvoke yet).
In Understanding WCF Services in Silverlight 2, the author, David Betz, explains how to call a web service without adding a service reference in the client application. I have a couple of weeks experience with WCF, so the article was over my head. In particular, although the author gave a lot of code snippets, but does not say what goes where. In the article, he provides two different code snippets for the web.config file, but does not clarify what's going on.
Looking at the source code there are four projects and two web.config files.
So far, I have been using the standard Silverlight project configuration of one project for the web service and one for the Silverlight client.
Firstly, does the procedure described in the article work with the standard two project configuration? I would think it would.
Secondly, does anyone know of a simpler example? I am very interested in this, but would like to either see source code in the default two project setup which is generated when a new Silverlight project is made, or find a step by step description of how to do this (eg, add a class called xxx.cs and add this code..., open web.config and add these lines...)
Many thanks
Mike Thomas
First, a little philosophy...
If you are a consumer of a WCF service that you did not write, adding a service reference to your client is really the only mechanism you have to enable interaction with that WCF service. Otherwise, you have no way of knowing what the service contract looks like, much less its data and message contracts.
However, if you are in control of both the client and the WCF service itself, adding a service reference to the client is a nice convenience, but I've recently been convinced not to use it. For one, it becomes a nuisance after the first few times you change your contract to remember to update your service reference. And in my case, I have several different C# projects that are consuming the WCF service, so I have to remember to update each one of them. Second, creating a service reference duplicates the contract definitions that are already defined in your WCF service. It is important to understand the implications of this.
Let's say your WCF defines the following type.
[DataContract]
public class Person
{
[DataMember] public string FirstName {get; set;}
[DataMember] public string LastName {get; set;}
}
When you add a service reference to your client, the metadata associated with this class is retrieved through the metadata exchange (MEX) endpoint, and an exact replica of this class is created on the client side that your client "compiles" against. So your WCF service has a definition of the Person class, and so does your client, but they are two different, distinct class definitions.
Given this, it would make more sense to abstract the Person class into a separate assembly that is then shared between the WCF service and the client. The added benefit is that when you change the contract definitions within this shared assembly, you no longer have to update the service reference within the client because it is already referencing the shared assembly. Does that make sense?
Now to your question. Personally, I've only used WCF within C# projects, not Silverlight. However, I do not think things are radically different. Given that, I would suggest that you watch the Extreme WCF video at dnrTV. It gives a step-by-step guide for how to bypass the service reference feature.
Hope this helps.
Let me try - I'm not an expert at Silverlight development, so bear with me if I say something that doesn't apply to Silverlight :-)
As Matt Davis mentioned, the "usual" use case is this: you add a service reference to a given service URL. In doing so, Visual Studio (or the command-line tool svcutil.exe) will interrogate the service and grab its metadata - information that describes the service, all the available methods to call, what parameter they expect etc. From this, it will generate a class for you (usually called the "client" or "client proxy"), which you as a client (=service consumer) will use to call the service. You can have this client proxy class generated inside your "normal" Silverlight client project, or you could possibly create your own "service adapter" class library, esp. if you will be sharing that client proxy code amongst several Silverlight projects. How things are structured on the server side of things is totally irrelevant at this point.
As Matt D. also mentioned, if you do it this way, you're getting copies of the service, its methods, and its data, in your client - those are identical in structure to what the server has - but they're not the same type - you on the client side have one type, the server has another (the fields and properties are identical though).
This is important to remember since the whole basic idea of WCF is message-passing - all that connects the client (you) and the server (the other end) are the messages and their structure - what method to call and what values to pass into that method. There's no other link - there's no way a server can "connect" to the client code and check something or whatever. All that gets exchanged is serialized messages (in text or binary form).
If you do control both ends, you can simplify things a bit - you can physically share the service contract (the definition what the service looks like and what methods it has to call into) and the data contract (the description of what data is being passed back and forth) on both the server side as well as the client side. In this case, you won't be adding a service reference, you won't be duplicating the service and data definitions, so things are a bit easier (but it only works if you're in control of both ends).
In this case, best practice would be to package up all that describes the service (the service interface with its methods and the data contracts) into a separate assembly (class library) on the server, which you can then copy to the client side, and reference directly from there (like any old assembly you might have). So in this case, you would typically have at least three projects in your solution:
your actual Silverlight client project
the website or web app hosting your Silverlight control for testing
the service interface assembly, which contains the service and data contracts
So there you have it - I hope I covered all the basics of what's going on, and why you would want to do one or the other thing. If you need additional info, don't hesitate to comment on this posting and let us know!
Marc
I am just curious to know that what is ClientBase class in WCF, and how can i use it.
I surfed the internet and i found that this class is used to create proxies to call service methods , but no example.
Please anyone explain it with example , it will help me undestand this class...
It's the base class for your client proxies being generated by either "Add Service Reference", the svcutil.exe command line utility, or by your custom code if you don't want to use any of those methods.
It's a generic type that takes the generated client-copy of the service contract as its type parameter.
It can be extended, if you wish to do so - e.g. see IDesign's download page for a few samples of what can be done, things like:
AsyncClientBase for safe asynchronous calls
HeaderClientBase for simplified support of custom headers in your messages
Marc
It's there for autogenerated proxies which are created when service references are added to your project, not really for your own use.