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".
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 working on a simple plug-in framework. WCF client need to create an instance of 'ISubject' and then send back to service side. The 'ISubject' can be extended by the user. The only thing client knows at runtime is ID of a subclass of 'ISubject'.
Firstly, client need to get type information of a specific subclass of 'ISubject'. Secondly, client using reflection to enumerate all members to create a custom property editor so that each member can be asigned with proper value. Lastly, client create an instance of that subclass and send back to service.
The problem is how does client get the type information through WCF communication?
I don't want client to load that assembly where the subclass (of 'ISubject') exists.
Thanks
First, you need to be aware that there is no magic way that WCF will provide any type information to your client in the scenario you have descibed. If you are going to do it, you will have to provide a mechanism yourself.
Next, understand that WCF does not really pass objects from server to client or vice versa. All it passes are XML infosets. Often, the XML infoset passed includes a serialized representation of some object which existed on the sender's side; in this case, if the client knows about that type (i.e. can load the type's metadata from its assembly), it can deserialize the XML to instantiate an identical object on the client side. If the client doesn't have the type metadata, it can't: this is the normal case with WCF unless data contract types are in assemblies shared by both server and client implementations (generally not a good idea).
The way WCF is normally used (for example if the client is implemented using a "Service Reference" in Visual Studio), what happens is that the service publishes WSDL metadata describing its operations and the XML schemas for the operation parameters and return values, and from these a set of types is generated for use in the client implementation. These are NOT the same .NET types as the data contract types used by the service implementation, but they are "equivalent" in the sense that they can be serialized to the same XML data passed over the network. Normally this type generation is done at design time in Visual Studio.
In order to do what you are trying to do, which is essentially to do this type generation at runtime, you will need some mechanism by which the client can get sufficient knowledge of the structure of the XML representing the various types of object implementing ISubject so that it can understand the XML received from the service and generate the appropriate XML the service is expecting back (either working with the XML directly, or deserializing/serializing it in some fashion). If you really, really want to do this, possible ways might be:
some out-of-band mechanism whereby the client is preconfigured with the relevant type information corresponding to each subclass of ISubject that it might see. The link provided in blindmeis's answer is one way to do that.
provide a separate service operation by which the client can translate the ID of the subclass to type metadata for the subclass (perhaps as an XSD schema from which the client could generate a suitable serializable .NET type to round trip the XML).
it would also be feasible in principle for the service to pass type metadata in some format within the headers of the response containing the serialized object. The client would need to read, interpret and act on the type infomation in an appropriate fashion.
Whichever way, it would be a lot of effort and is not the standard way of using WCF. You will have to decide if it's worth it.
I think you might be missing something :)
A major concept with web services and WCF is that we can pass our objects across the network, and the client can work with the same objects as the server. Additionally, when a client adds a service reference in Visual Studio, the server will send the client all the details it needs to know about any types which will be passed across the network.
There should be no need for reflection.
There's a lot to cover, but I suggest you start with this tutorial which covers WCF DataContracts - http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WCF/WCFHostingAndConsuming.aspx
To deserialize an object the receiving side will need to have the assembly the type is defined in.
Perhaps you should consider some type of remoting or proxying setup where the instance of ISubject lives on one side and the other side calls back to it. This may be problematic if you need to marshal large amounts of data across the wire.
wcf needs to know the real object(not an interface!) which should be sent across the wire. so you have to satisfy the server AND the clientproxy side from the WCF service that they know the types. if you dont know the object type while creating the WCF service, you have to find a way to do it in a dynamic way. i use the solution from here to get the knownTypes to my WCF service.
[ServiceContract(SessionMode = SessionMode.Required]
[ServiceKnownType("GetServiceKnownTypes", typeof(KnownTypeHelper))]//<--!!!
public interface IWCFService
{
[OperationContract(IsOneWay = false)]
object DoSomething(object obj);
}
if you have something "universal" like the code above, you have to be sure that whatever your object at runtime will be, your WCF service have to know this object.
you wrote your client create a subclass and sent it back to the service. if you want to do that, WCF(clientproxy and server!) needs to know the real type of your subclass.
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.
As the title implies I am trying to get an understanding of why in WCF sometimes people choose to "generate proxies" vs using a ChannelFactory to manually create new channel instances. I have seen examples of each, but haven't really found any explanations of WHY you would go for one vs the other.
To be honest I have only ever worked with channels and the ChannelFactory<T> from code I have inherited, ie:
IChannelFactory<IDuplexSessionChannel> channelFactory =
binding.BuildChannelFactory<IDuplexSessionChannel>();
_duplexSessionChannel = channelFactory.CreateChannel(endpointAddress);
So why would I "generate a proxy"? What are the benefits and drawbacks?
The main difference is this:
generating a proxy only requires you to know the URL where the service resides. By generating the proxy, everything else (the service contract and the data contracts involved) will be determined by inspecting the metadata of the service
in order to directly create a ChannelFactory<T>, you must have direct access to the assembly that contains that service contract T for which you're generating a channel factory. This only ever works if you basically control both ends of the channel and you can share the assembly that contains those service contracts. Typically, with a third-party service, this won't be the case - with your own services, yes.
The second important point is this:
creating a generated proxy basically does the two steps that you would do - create a ChannelFactory<T>, and from that, create the actual channel - in a single constructor. You have no control over these two steps.
doing your own Channel creation is beneficial, since the creation of the ChannelFactory<T> is the expensive step - so yo could cache your channel factory instance somewhere. Creating and re-creating the actual channel from the factory is much less involved step which you can do more frequently
So if you do control both ends of the communication, service and client, you do have the option to share the service contracts in a separate assembly, and thus you have more options.
With most third-party services, you just simply don't have that option.
Using a proxy is simpler and easier to understand. You get to deal in terms of simple things - classes and methods on those classes - instead of complex, network-related things like channels.
OTOH, this is not made easier by the design flaw in WCF that prevents the same simple use of a WCF proxy that we could do with ASMX proxies:
using (var client = new MyServiceClient())
{
}
If you use this pattern with WCF, you can lose the original exception when the block is exited due to an exception. client.Dispose() can throw an exception, which will overwrite the exception originally being thrown. A more complex pattern is required.
This may help you:
When to use a proxy?
If you have a service that you know is going to be used by several applications or is generic enough to be used in several places, you’ll want to use the proxy classes.
When to use ChannelFactory?
ChannelFactory class is used to construct a channel between the client and the service without the need of a proxy. In some cases, you may have a service that is tightly bound to the client application. In such a case, you can reference the Interface DLL directly and use ChannelFactory to call your methods using that.
You could also refer following link to understand the difference between Channel Factory and Proxy class
http://ashishkhandelwal.arkutil.com/wcf/channelfactory-over-proxy-class-in-wcf/
The main advantage of the channelFactory is you can create the proxy at runtime dynamically on the fly. With SvcUtil (Add web reference in VS) you create the proxy at design time, so it's implementation is more static.