We have a multi services application.
We have moved a method that involves a DB access to a separate component that is exposed by a WCF endpoint.
We have more than one service that need to use this method.
The dilemma is what to use:
A WCF call to the method.
Call directly to the method, resolved by our DI engine.
The system performance is a critical issue.
So what do you think is better?
Using WCF to make the cal
Reference the required service and call it in-process using the DI engine.
Thanks Or.
If performance is critical, referencing the service component and calling directly the DB without going through all the WCF layers and serialization processes will be faster but less robust. If you decide to change the implementation you will need to recompile the client application as well. My advice would be to measure the performance of the WCF service call and if you are happy with the results leave it that way.
Related
Need some expert opinion on this case study.
Problem Statement/Scenario:
My WCF client/proxy continually requiring some lockup data from relevant WCF service. More precisely, I've a WCF service that provides Location data (City/Country etc) from a database (although data is cached on Service). Some how I want to avoid Serialization/DeSerialization (Object contains a lot of associated properties as well as inner objects) cost and service operation execution for better throughput.
Few days back I studied WCF behaviors/WCF extension methods.I found an interesting article on MSDN (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163302.aspx). After reading this article I thought this could help me to improve performance of my service. So before implementing this I want to confirm that either I'm thinking in right direction or any other solution can solve my problem.
I'm thinking to implement Dispatcher Extensions to solve this problem instead of Proxy (Client) Extensions. I've following queries?
I) Where (Proxy/Service level) I need to implement extensions?
II) When implementing Dispatcher Extensions my call will not send to actual service and I'll save Serialization/DeSerialization cost. Right/Wrong?
III) Implementing Dispatcher Extensions in my case is also better, because why need not to bother about which proxy interface method call occurred as caching logic is on service side. Right/Wrong?
Please suggest me a better solution as I want to save Serialization/DeSerialization cost as well as I want to implement data caching.
Thanks in advance
/Rizwan
There are two ways I've incorporated WCF caching in the past:
Using Castle DynamicProxy to generate proxies for my ServiceContract interfaces. These dynamic proxies use interceptors to perform caching. If the data is not in the cache, the interceptor creates a real WCF client (a ChannelFactory<TInterface>) and invokes the WCF operation, then caches the result. I like this approach, because the caching implementation isn't really WCF specific.
Implement an IRealProxy for WCF which wraps the actual remote operations and performs caching/retrieval as necessary. In principal, this is similar to approach 1, but the implementation is specific to WCF (with remnants of .NET Remoting). I used this approach before migrating to #1. I migrated to approach 1 because approach 1 let me accomplish caching on both the client and the server in an implementation agnostic manner. At the time, I rolled my own RealProxy, but it looks like someone else has since done the same and posted the code: http://blog.ngommans.ca/index.php?/archives/31-Custom-Proxy-Generation-using-RealProxy.html
We are migrating set of WSE services to WCF platform.
The new WCF services are called over secured HTTP. (https)
I want to invoke an operation contract of one WCF service from another. Both the services are mostly hosted in the same IIS, but they can be on separate IIS server.
Do I need to take care of some things (which i obviously do not know at present) in this scenario?
Is there any special calling mechanism in this case?
Does calling mechanism change when call is synchronous and when it is asynchronous?
Can you suggest some type of binding which is readily available in this case?
1.) If the services are on the same box, use named pipes, unless you have any compelling reason not to, to communicate with each other. While WCF proper doesn't care about what you're doing as long as the address, binding and contract all match up (see what I did there?), .NET will when it comes to making network connections. The fewer you use, the better. (see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/fb6y0fyc.aspx for more details)
2.) As stated in #1, if they're talking on the same box, use named pipes unless there's a good reason not to.
3.) Can you provide a little more detail on what you mean by this or what you're planning on doing? A lot of this is built out for you, so assuming you're familiar with implementing async methods and using async callbacks, the short answer is yes, it's different than calling an operation synchronously, but that's to be expected. Or do you mean IsOneWay = true? If that's the case, the calling mechanism is the same but there can be a number of other gotchas (e.g. faults)
4.) Named Pipes on the same box, BasicHttp otherwise (unless you need any of the additional features from WS).
but they can be on separate IIS server
In this case, you either can't use Windows authentication (if you were using it) or you have to set up some special delegates stuff on the domain to make it work. Windows Authentication won't "hop" between different servers. Here's some info on that, there's a lot of reading out there on the subject.
If they stay on the same server or you're not using Windows authentication, then it shouldn't be a problem.
Does calling mechanism change when call is synchronous and when it is
asynchronous?
Shouldn't matter, it's all the same on the service end. I will say that if the client calls X and X calls Y, X might as well call Y synchronously because it can't return to the client until Y is done anyway. (If X calls Y and Z, then X making async calls may make more sense.)
Can you suggest some type of binding which is readily available in
this case?
If you were using WSE before, then BasicHttpBinding is going to be the one closest to what you were doing and will look pretty familiar in what it outputs. It's also the simplest one to work with.
There shouldn't be anything special needed just because a WCF service method calls another WCF service. A WCF service doesn't "care" what other application types are calling its methods so long as they use the correct service contract, data contract, endpoint, and binding settings.
Just make sure that both service methods return promptly, and don't cause execution to block for long periods of time.
I am migrating a web service to WCF so I can use binary encoding. I am now realizing that the session calls and application state calls are not recognized. WCF is supposed to be better then a web service so I am assuming that there is a better way to do things.
1) How do I maintain session and call a web service that uses session?
2) How do I replace the application object?
For those of you who are migrating a large project and cannot afford to be so ideological, I found a real answer here:
http://megakemp.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/migrating-aspnet-web-services-to-wcf/
In WCF, the best practice is not to have any state whenever possible, since your clients should be calling you with a "per-call" approach - each call from a client gets a new instance of your WCF service class, which is totally independent of anything else, ideally.
If you need to have persistent state, store it in a persistent store - typically a database.
WCF is also by default totally independent of ASP.NET and IIS, and thus cannot leverage the HttpContext, HttpSessionState and so forth objects - since it might be self-hosted in a console app which has no knowledge of IIS, HTTP context etc.
The question is: what exactly do you really use from those HttpSessionState and HttpApplicationState objects? Somehow, you need to abstract that away or solve it some other way, e.g. have the client send you that information (as a parameter on your web service method call, or as a header in the message), or have the client send you a "token" of sorts which allows you to retrieve the relevant info from e.g. a database table.
Chapter 4 in Juval Lowy's excellent Programming WCF Services (link) is all about Instance Management. There are sections on Per-Session services and Durable services, each of which might be what you're looking for.
However, Marc's point is very valid. There are a lot of cons to using session with WCF services, but it is possible. Lowy discusses a lot of this in some detail.
There a lot of different ways a Silverlight application can connect back to it’ server. Including
WCF - Windows Communication Foundation
REST (see also)
ADO.NET Data Services (or is this just REST?)
POX - Plain Old XML (E.g basic xml)
RIA services
For each of these please say what it’s for and when you would or wouldn’t use it. I am not looking for a great level of details just a set of “rules of thumb” for choosing between them.
(The problem is when designing your first Silverlight application knowing what to use when you don’t have time to learn all of them.)
If I was to replace Silverlight with WPF in this question what effect would it have on your answers? (I am assuming with WPF that due to firewalls and admin policies a direct connect to the database is not an option.)
My two (euro) cents:
WCF seems best suited when the service can be viewed as the business layer of the application, that is, when your service has "intelligent" operations like "CalculateDiscountForClient".
ADO.NET Data Services (indeed, just a REST implementation) seems appropriate when your application is basically data-centric and the service is simply a front-end for the database. That is, all your service methods are of type GetCustomers, CreateInvoice, etc.
RIA services is a very new technology that I haven't experimented with yet, but it seems to be useful to create applications in which the Silverlight part and the service are very tightly coupled: you define your service classes and methods in the service project, and they are automatically replicated to the Silverlight project in design time. Also, you can define both WCF-style "action" methods and ADO.NET Data Services-style "data" methods. Looks promising.
Use POX if there is a chance that you change the client part from Silverlight to any other technology (for example HTML+AJAX) in the future, since it is the most interoperable option.
About differences for WPF, the only I can think of, is that for data access, whenever possible I would use direct ADO.NET data connections (properly embedded in a data access layer, LINQ to SQL or the like) instead of ADO.NET Data Services, since it is way more flexible. I must say anyway that I have never developed anything in WPF.
We use RIA, and that's the only one of the options that I know, but I do know it, so here's some of my thoughts.
RIA isn't finished yet. It is being worked on. If you are planning to be finished soon, and you're worried about having to support something that has a potential to change quite a bit, then you might want to consider other options. If this is a new project, and you're going to be supporting it for a long time, RIA will probably get easier to use.
Having said that, I kind of think that there won't be many changes in the way the July Preview of RIA works and the way that a finished version will work. Also the level of support seems to suggest that this will become "The Way" to talk to a server in Silverlight.
Just cause it's worth mentioning, have some links:
http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/ Brad Abrams has an example that he is continually updating.
http://forums.silverlight.net/forums/53.aspx this is where you go to ask questions.
http://www.riaservicesblog.com/Blog/ Colin Blair knows his stuff, and he is very helpful.
I think I would not go POX ever again. If you write WCF so that the service itself is independent of the binding and binding is done in configuration files, then WCF is pretty much agnostic about transport and protocol. It can do SOAP, JSON, REST, or its own form of binary serialization. All of this is in the binding. Internally, WCF only specifies what gets exposed in terms of operation and data contracts (all defined by class, method, and property attributes). WCF gives you tremendous flexibility in this regard, with more to come in 2010.
From the Silverlight side, WCF requires that you write some plumbing code. The .NET frameowrk has the tools to build the proxy in your Silverlight project, but you must be prepared to handle all WCF responses asynchronously, and the proxy cannot catch exceptions thrown by the service.
.NET RIA Services hides all this. It uses WCF under the covers, but that is completely hidden. You don't have to write asynchronous code. You define validation once, mostly declaratively, and it works both server-side and client-side. Release 1 will be targeted for Silverlight, so you don't get the versatility to use the service elsewhere. That scope is supposed to be broadened in later releases.
I don't know enough about ADO.NET Data Services to compare. I suspect the answer would depend on whether you want to expose your data to more than just Silverlight usage.
.NET RIA Services looks like the direction I'd want to go (looking at these issues myself, with a large application in mind). The big issues for me will be implementing a very large collection of functionality in the service layer, and not being able to code directly to the data access layer (we have to be able to run on either SQL Server or Oracle).
Using WPF instead of Silverlight changes everything, depending on where your data resides. It's like the old question of Winforms vs. ASP.NET. With WPF, you're building a Windows client app, and you don't need to use any form of service-based data interface at all, unless your data access forces you into it. You'll still want to separate data and business from presentation code, using MVVM, MVC, or MVP. Other than that, you have the option to treat data access as a layer, rather than a wholy independent tier.
WCF is Microsoft's standard for service communication. I would strongly advise anyone to create a service layer using WCF Web APIs (uses WCF, but tailored specifically for REST), which is coming out this April 2012. WCF Web APIs is currently in preview mode.
Remember these rules of thumb:
- your UI will change faster than your service layer. RESTful services will be around in several years, Silverlight probably won't
- will your services ever be APIs? Well...WCF REST is the way to go
- will you mix JavaScript and Silverlight code? WCF REST will make your life easier
- will you have a mobile component (since Silverlight won't run on iOS or android)...REST is preferred.
Don't tailor to the technology, but the app as a whole.
If you want to create a Silverlight Application and you do not care about other clients, then I would choose RIA Services. It is quite painless to use and you do not need to worry how the connection from the client is made (i.e. no client side configuration necessary). RIA also generates classes for all your entities on the client and you can even share your own "server" code with the client if required (useful for enumerations or extension methods).
Remarks:
I never tried this, but if you really need you can access the RIA Service also with other clients, after all RIA Services are built on top of WCF services.
I do not quite understand Akash Kava's security concerns. You can (and have to) control security on the server-side as you would do with any other service.
For me I have a WCF service which acts as DAL and does all the CRUD operations
I just came to know regarding the new ADO.Net Data Service, just read somewhat but not actually sure when & where to use it?
Just to add more, my new project is in ASP.Net MVC, so is it wise to use ADO.NET Data Service rather than WCF service with it which will probably act somewhat like 'M'(Model) of MVC ???
First, my advice would be to write your MVC code so that it is oblivious to what the back-end data model is. Abstract away any dependencies right from the beginning.
As for deciding whether or not to use WCF, I'd suggest that you decide whether or not you'll want to reuse the data component that you write. If you have plans on using your data code in a Silverlight, WPF, or any other format, then I'd suggest sticking with WCF.
Also, remember that you can always simply wrap the ADO.NET data services with a WCF component and still enable the reuse scenario. Get the best of both worlds!
One big advantage is that with the ADO.NET Data Services, you don't have to specifically write all the services for basic CRUD operations as you may with WCF. Since ADO.NET data services basically expose those operations, you can focus more code writing and debugging on business logic.
The big advantage of WCF Data Services, and IMO it fits your need, is when your service layer is used for CRUD only. You do not have (and do not need) any business logic in it.
As Tad pointed out, the reuse is an advantage, but on the other hand, WCF Data Services will give your web app, or any consumer, a very flexible way to query data. With WCF, you'll have to write code to give the consumers the same query flexibility OData gives.
I had a experience recently. I created a service layer with WCF and in many cases, the service operations was used only to call a repository. There wasn't any rule, only query logic. The consumer was able to pass a criteria to have a result back.
The requirements changed and we realized that we could make it more simply (less code to maintain) by using WCF Data Service.