I want to start to develop my own social networking site in asp.net mvc with Entity framework code frist methodology (linq,back end ms sql server)...is it best choice to select this platform and why?
so, i will start to develop and also any info or link is there please send me??
No technology really does provide anything out-of-the-box. You can use MVC with entity framework but also ASP.NET with Linq to SQL (just as an example)
Either way you will have to build it from scratch if you do not want to use external controls. I would strictly recommend telerik (www.telerik.com) They offer great controls for mvc as well as for asp.net. But even if you use external controls you have to design the data/object-structure by yourself
There is no one true platform that is geared towards writing a social networking web application. Most have their advantages and disadvantages. If you are a .NET developer and you need to build something in RAD then use web forms, if you want to build something with separation and clean code in mind, use MVC.
I need to evaluate SOA architecture between WCF Data Services vs WCF RIA Services. Following are some of my parameters:
Multiple Client (HTML5/iOS/Android/Windows 8 Metro/Windows Phone 7)
Disconnected and offline operation
Validation engine
Performance
Network data compression
Support for Cloud Environment
Could anyone help me to gather some data for my evaluation. Also, is there any other good option available for SOA implementation.
I am aware of DevForce.
I'm intimately familiar with RIA Services and know where it falls short. I know little about data services and DevForce, but I know that DevForces advertises to be better than RIA Services in exactly those areas where it annoys me, which is:
RIA can't do group-by or joins of any sort. (Interestingly, the DevExpress toolkit can
do some trickery to group on a RIA Services source in some cases.)
It does understand relationships, but not of the many-to-many kind where it would have to
handle a translation to a bridge table transparently. (EDIT: this is planned for Open Ria Services)
The change tracking works through a context (unit of work) which can only be submitted or
rejected as a whole (out-of-the-box anyway). That usually leads to an application with
many contexts and weird copy operations to transfer entities. The RIAServicesContrib
project helps with that.
It appears to be no longer maintained. I base this on the fact that when Entity Framework 4.1 released their new DbContext API (for code first), Microsoft released a compatibility library with which you could use RIA and EF code first. That library has a version lock on EF 4.1 though, and Microsoft now just states that RIA Services doesn't support DbContext in the form of an Orwellian note to Visual Studio 2012. (EDIT: DbContext is now supported again - EF is currently supported up to version 5, with 6 being likely only supported in Open Ria Services)
Some tasks such as observing changes of related entities programatically (rather than
through data binding) are hard.
Some things which should be really simple, such as getting the context from an attached
entity, are hard.
All queries are single requests, only the remaining CUD (of the CRUD) is batched.
Custom methods to invoke along with normal CUD operations are very limited. In
particular, it's not
possible to cancel one that is scheduled without cancelling the whole context. That has
made them almost useless in most cases where I wanted to use them.
You will have to decide whether or not to use the DomainDataSource, which is a beast
that does too much and too little. You can fetch everything programatically too, but
some things are really quick to wire up with this xaml helper.
There is no built-in support for serializing entities to isolated storage.
Silverlight (and Javascript I believe) are the only supported platforms - no WPF.
(EDIT: this is planned for Open Ria Services - in particular, it should be able to serve BreezeJS)
Since Data Services is older (I think), I didn't care to ever look closely at it. I did however recently skim over the feature list of DevForce and I believe that sounds exciting, although I can't say anything about it from experience.
(EDIT: I found a very knowledgeable comparison of RIA Services and WCF by Colin Blair here.)
The architect compares his product to RIA Services here. I covered some of his points, but not all.
Altogether I can say that RIA Services is clearly better than raw WCF, but it's also clear there has to be something better than that. I hope that's DevForce.
Both expose entities via OData, but RIA Services is specifically targeted to:
Silverlight consumption
Poor man's services - they're easier to get up and running with little effort
WCF Data Services are far more powerful and configurable. The biggest difference (IMO) is that RIA services require one host type per entity, whereas WCF Data Services can automatically host an entire content (a type with multiple IQueryable properties).
That said, both implementations are pretty half baked (again IMO only) and not really well thought out or implemented. ...You may be better off with traditional WCF operations hosted with WebGet/WebInvoke attributes...or using the WCF Web API.
I wouldn't go with DevForce only because it mainly really target Silverlight implementations (if I recall correctly). That said, they're package is pretty cool and far more feature complete than RIA or WCF Data Services.
I'm looking at new architecture for my site and was wondering if pairing NHibernate with a web service core is a good idea. What I want to do is make my webservice the core of my business, from the site front ends to the utilties I write. I'm trying to make all of my UIs completely ignorant of anything but my service API's.
In a simple strawman experiement, I'm running into issues with Serialzing my Iesi ISets....this is causing me to rethink the strategy altogether.
I know I could just develop a core Library (dll) and reference that in each of my applications, but maintaining that dll's version over a minimum of 6 applications seems like it's going to cause me much pain.
With NHibernate, what are the pro's and con's of those two approaches?
I see no problem in using NHibernate and webservices together - I just don't think it's a good idea to send the entities themselves over "to the other side".
A better approach is to use a set of DTOs that are made for the service - then you won't be running into issues like that of serializing unknown types and such.
You can use a library like AutoMapper to do the mapping from the entities to the DTOs.
There's a lot of stuff written about this, some of it:
http://martinfowler.com/bliki/FirstLaw.html
http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2009/05/14/the-stripper-pattern.aspx
http://elegantcode.com/2008/04/27/dtos-or-serialized-domain-entities/
DTOs vs Serializing Persisted Entities
As a side note for the service it self, you could design wise use an approach like Davy Brion describes here: http://davybrion.com/blog/2009/11/requestresponse-service-layer-series/
I don't know NHibernate, but want to remind you that you should be using WCF for new web service development, unless you are stuck in the past (.NET 2.0). Microsoft now considers ASMX web services to be "legacy technology", and you can imagine what that means.
I have an XBap system designed as a 3-layer application. The XBap client consumes the logic through a WCF Service using netTcpBinding.
For easy of databinding and to be able to re use data validation built-in my business objects, I choosed to reference the business objects library from the xBap client instead of generating proxies.
These objects implement no logic other than they own basic data validation. The real business logic is implemented inside my WCF service.
Now I'm facing a big challenge. I need to port the xBap to silverlight, so I need my silverlight app. to consume the same business logic (which is also used by a winforms LOB application).
Some problems that arise:
1) Can't reference the business objects library from the silverlight client application because it's compiled as a regular dll and not a silverlight one.
2) Can't compile it as a silverlight library because I'd loose lots of functionallity and obviously is not a good idea anyway. If in the future a new .net platform arises I have no warranties that the modified (silverlight) dll will work.
I had some hope when I discovered RIAServices. I read somewhere I could implement a service and use any kind of DAL. (I have a custom one) but I found no example showing how to put RIAServices on top of an existing business layer. It's worth to say that we don't use (and we are not planning to) LINQ. Every example I found started using RIAServices and writing the business logic from scratch using LINQ.
RIAServices generates databinding-ready client code, but I feel I would have to change the entire business layer and that would be really expensive.
So, the solution seems to be to keep using WCF, specially now that silverlight 3.0 supports a new binary binding, and to work with proxies instead of the actual business objects.
The problem is that those proxies don't include data validation, property change notification and change tracking, three aspects that my business clasess perform.
RIAServices resolves these and other aspects but it requieres to work with silverlight proyects. WCF (SVCUtil.exe) generates proxies but they are not 'complete' for our needs. So It seems I'll have to develop my own utility for generating those proxies taking a business object as input.
Before I start doing so, I wish to know if anyone has already faced this problem and was able to resolve it in a convinient and painless way.
Thanks in advance,
Gonzalo
Check this blog post and sample - Business Apps Example for Silverlight 3 RTM and .NET RIA Services July Update: Part 8: WCF Based Data Source.
It shows writing a DomainService using .NET RIA Services that exposes operations and a model to Silverlight client, and in turn works against a WCF service.
You shouldn't need to change your business logic. The DomainService as a layer would reuse that, and it would make sense if you can't expose your business logic/WCF services as-is to Silverlight clients ...
Hope that helps.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I understand the value of the three-part service/host/client model offered by WCF. But is it just me or does it seem like WCF took something pretty direct and straightforward (the ASMX model) and made a mess out of it?
Is there an alternative to using SvcUtil's command line step back in time to generate the proxy? With ASMX services a test harness was automatically provided; is there a good alternative today with WCF?
I appreciate that the WS* stuff is more tightly integrated with WCF and hope to find some payoff for WCF there, but geeze, otherwise I'm perplexed.
Also, the state of books available for WCF is abysmal at best. Juval Lowy, a superb author, has written a good O'Reilly reference book "Programming WCF Services" but it doesn't do that much (for me anyway) for learning now to use WCF. That book's precursor (and a little better organized, but not much, as a tutorial) is Michele Leroux Bustamante's Learning WCF. It has good spots but is outdated in place and its corresponding Web site is gone.
Do you have good WCF learning references besides just continuing to Google the bejebus out of things?
Okay, here we go. First, Michele Leroux Bustamante's book has been updated for VS2008. The website for the book is not gone. It's up right now, and it has tons of great WCF info. On that website she provides updated code compatible with VS2008 for all the examples in her book. If you order from Amazon, you will get the reprint which is updated.
WCF is not only a replacement for ASMX. Sure it can (and does quite well) replace ASMX, but the real benefit is that it allows your services to be self-hosted. Most of the functionality from WSE has been baked in from the start. The framework is highly configurable, and the ability to serve multiple endpoints over multiple protocols is amazing, IMO.
While you can still generate proxy classes from the "Add Service Reference" option, it's not necessary. All you really have to do is copy your ServiceContract interface and tell your code where to find the endpoint for the service, and that's it. You can call methods from the service with very little code. Using this method, you have complete control over the implementation. Regardless of the method you choose to generate a proxy class, Michele shows both and uses both in her excellent series of webcasts on the subject.
Michele has tons of great material out there, and I recommend you check out her website(s). Here's some links that were incredibly helpful for me as I was learning WCF. I hope that you'll come to realize how strong WCF really is, and how easy it is to implement. The learning curve is a little bit steep, but the rewards for your time investment are well worth it:
Michele's webcasts: http://www.dasblonde.net/2007/06/24/WCFWebcastSeries.aspx
Michele's book website (alive and updated for VS2008): http://www.thatindigogirl.com/
I recommend you watch at least 1 of Michele's webcasts. She is a very effective presenter, and she's obviously incredibly knowledgeable when it comes to WCF. She does a great job of demystifying the inner workings of WCF from the ground up.
I typically use Google to find my WCF answers and commonly find myself on the following blogs:
Blogs with valuable WCF articles
http://blogs.msdn.com/drnick/default.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/wenlong/default.aspx
http://blogs.thinktecture.com/buddhike/
http://www.dasblonde.net/default.aspx
Other valuable articles I've found
http://blogs.conchango.com/pauloreichert/archive/2007/02/22/WCF-Reliable-Sessions-Puzzle.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/salvapatuel/archive/2007/04/25/why-using-is-bad-for-your-wcf-service-host.aspx
I'm having a hardtime to see when I should or would use WCF. Why? Because I put productivity and simplicity on top of my list. Why was the ASMX model so succesful, because it worked, and you get it to work fast. And with VS 2005 and .NET 2.0 wsdl.exe was spitting out pretty nice and compliant services.
In real life you should have very few communication protocols in your architecture. This keeps it simple an maintainable. If you need to acces to legacy systems, write specific adapters for them so they can play along in the nice shiny and beautiful SOA world.
WCF is much more powerful than ASMX and it extends it in several ways. ASMX is limited to only HTTP, whereas WCF can use several protocols for its communication (granted, HTTP is still the way most people will use it, at least for services that need to be interoperable). WCF is also easier to extend. At least, it is possible to extend it in ways that ASMX cannot be extended. "Easy" may be stretching it. =)
The added functionality offered by WCF far outweighs the complexity it adds, in my opinion. I also feel that the programming model is easier. DataContracts are much nicer than having to serialize using XML serialization with public properties for everything, for example. It's also much more declarative in nature, which is also nice.
Wait.... did you ever use .NET Remoting, cause thats the real thing its replacing. .NET Remoting is pretty complicated itself. I find WCF easier and better laid out.
I don't see it mentioned often enough, but you can still implement fairly simple services with WCF, very similar to ASMX services. For example:
[ServiceContract]
[AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode = AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Allowed)]
public class SimpleService
{
[OperationContract]
public string HelloWorld()
{
return "Hello World";
}
}
You still have to register the end point in your web.config, but that's not so bad.
Eliminating the verbosity of the separated data, service, and operation contracts goes a long way toward making WCF more manageable for me.
VS2008 includes the "Add Service Reference" context menu item which will create the proxy for you behind the scenes.
As was mentioned previously, WCF is not intended solely as a replacement for the ASMX web service types, but to provide a consistent, secure and scalable methodology for all interoperable services, whether it is over HTTP, tcp, named pipes or MSMQ transports.
I will confess that I do have other issues with WCF (e.g. re-writing method signatures when exposing a service over basicHTTP - see here, but overall I think it is a definite imrovement
If you're using VS2008 and create a WCF project then you automatically get a test harness when you hit run/debug and you can add a reference without having to use svcutil.
My initial thoughts of WCF were exactly the same! Here are some solutions:
Program your own proxy/client layer utilising generics (see classes ClientBase, Binding). I've found this easy to get working, but hard to perfect.
Use a third party implementation of 1 (SoftwareIsHardwork is my current favourite)
WCF is a replacement for all earlier web service technologies from Microsoft. It also does a lot more than what is traditionally considered as "web services".
WCF "web services" are part of a much broader spectrum of remote communication enabled through WCF. You will get a much higher degree of flexibility and portability doing things in WCF than through traditional ASMX because WCF is designed, from the ground up, to summarize all of the different distributed programming infrastructures offered by Microsoft. An endpoint in WCF can be communicated with just as easily over SOAP/XML as it can over TCP/binary and to change this medium is simply a configuration file mod. In theory, this reduces the amount of new code needed when porting or changing business needs, targets, etc.
ASMX is older than WCF, and anything ASMX can do so can WCF (and more). Basically you can see WCF as trying to logically group together all the different ways of getting two apps to communicate in the world of Microsoft; ASMX was just one of these many ways and so is now grouped under the WCF umbrella of capabilities.
Web Services can be accessed only over HTTP & it works in stateless environment, where WCF is flexible because its services can be hosted in different types of applications. Common scenarios for hosting WCF services are IIS,WAS, Self-hosting, Managed Windows Service.
The major difference is that Web Services Use XmlSerializer. But WCF Uses DataContractSerializer which is better in Performance as compared to XmlSerializer.
In what scenarios must WCF be used
A secure service to process business transactions. A service that
supplies current data to others, such as a traffic report or other
monitoring service. A chat service that allows two people to
communicate or exchange data in real time. A dashboard application
that polls one or more services for data and presents it in a logical
presentation. Exposing a workflow implemented using Windows Workflow
Foundation as a WCF service. A Silverlight application to poll a
service for the latest data feeds.
Features of WCF
Service Orientation
Interoperability
Multiple Message Patterns
Service Metadata
Data Contracts
Security
Multiple Transports and Encodings
Reliable and Queued Messages
Durable Messages
Transactions
AJAX and REST Support
Extensibility
source: main source of text
MSDN? I usually do pretty well with the Library reference itself, and I usually expect to find valuable articles there.
In terms of what it offers, I think the answer is compatibility. The ASMX services were pretty Microsofty. Not to say that they didn't try to be compatible with other consumers; but the model wasn't made to fit much besides ASP.NET web pages and some other custom Microsoft consumers. Whereas WCF, because of its architecture, allows your service to have very open-standard--based endpoints, e.g. REST, JSON, etc. in addition to the usual SOAP. Other people will probably have a much easier time consuming your WCF service than your ASMX one.
(This is all basically inferred from comparative MSDN reading, so someone who knows more should feel free to correct me.)
WCF should not be thought of as a replacement for ASMX. Judging at how it is positioned and how it is being used internally by Microsoft, it is really a fundamental architecture piece that is used for any type of cross-boundary communication.
I believe that WCF really advances ASMX web services implementation in many ways. First of all it provides a very nice layered object model that helps hide the intrinsic complexity of distributed applications.
Secondly you can have more than request-replay messaging patterns, including asynchronous notifications from server to client (impossible with pure HTTP), and thirdly abstracting away the underlying transport protocol from XML messaging and thus elegantly supporting HTTP, HTTPS, TCP and other. Backward compatibility with "1-st generation" web services is also a plus.
WCF uses XML standard as the internal representation format. This could be perceived as advantage or disadvantage, especially with the growing popularity "fat-free alternatives to XML" like JSON.
The difficult things I find with WCF is managing the configurations for clients and servers, and troubleshooting the not so nice faulted state exceptions.
It would be great if anyone had any shortcuts or tips for those.
I find that is a pain; in that I have .NET at both ends, have the same "contract" dlls loaded at both ends etc. But then I have to mess about with a lot of details like "KnownType" attributes.
WCF also defaults to only letting 1 or 2 clients connect to a service until you change lots of configuration. Changing the config from code is not easy, shipping lots of comfig files is not an option, as it is too hard to merge our changes into any changes a customer may have made at the time of an upgrade (also we don't want customers playing with WCF settings!)
.NET remoting tended to just work most of the time.
I think trying to pretend that .NET to .NET object based communications is the same as sending bit so of Text (xml) to an unknown system, was a step too far.
(The few times we have used WCF to talk to a Java system, we found that the XSD that the java system gave out did not match what XML it wanted anyway, so had to hand-code a lot of the XML mappings.)