I'm looking for best practices on where to host associated Webservices/WCF Services for Silverlight applications.
One approach I see quite often is to host these services in the same web application project that is used to host the silverlight application. This seems convenient because it unions the two pieces together.
However, with DRY shouldn't these services be hosted externally so that possibly other applications could make use of them? Should they be in one assembly?
My main concern would be if I had multiple projects on the go, being completed by in house and external contractors. Synchronizing releases seems difficult in this scenario.
I would recommend hosting the WCF service separately. You'd just need to enable cross domain access for your service to allow the silverlight application to access it.
This would also allow you to have two separate release cycles for both of them and it makes for better maintainability if you'll have two separate teams working simultaneously.
Sounds like you want some kind of interface between them. If you use dependency injection you'd have a solid interface the SilverLight could work aganist and you'd be able to swap-out services providers as often as you like; it'd also go a long way to isolating change.
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.
Hi i would like your help so i can decide on what to do with this matter. The thing is that at my work we are currently migrating from Web Services to using WCF, now the thing is that when we used web services we had one web service that was in charge of invoking the business logic now the thing is that i would like to know what is actually the best way to achieve the same functionallity with WCF, using one unique service to call the different business logic classes or have multiple services to call the different business logic classes? also i have to clarify that when i say one unique service i mean that this will have just one method that one way or another will be capable of invoking any of the business logic classes depending on certain parameters and will also have other methods but for other different tasks, now i would like to know which would be the best approach for this, by the way the reason we have consider using one service like i told you is to manage from there the commits or rollbacks necessaries when something blows when making an operation on the db and have it just from one place, not all over the place, thanks in advance and well i'm kind of new with wcf.
You can migrate your existing service structure into WCF and still have the same functionality. You'll need to create and expose the service(s) according to WCF, but the architectural structure can remain how you have it in Web Services. You may want to revisit your design. There are many features at your disposal, including Entity Framework, that allow you to manage commits, rollbacks, etc.
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.
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.
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.