The OP in this question asks about using an WCF/OData as an internal data access layer.
Arguments of using WCF/OData as access layer instead of EF/L2S/nHibernate directly
The resounding reply seems to be don't do it. I'm in similar position to the OP, but have a concern not raised in the original question. I'm trying to develop (natively) for a lot of different platforms but want to keep as much of the data and business logic server side as possible. So I'll have iOS/Android/Web (MVC)/Desktop applications. Currently, I have a single WinForms applications with an ORM data access layer (LLBLGen Pro).
I'm envisioning moving most of my business / data access logic (possibly still with LLBLGen or other ORM) behind a WCF / OData interface. Then making all my different clients on the different platforms very thin (basically UI and WCF calls).
Is this also overengineered? Am I missing a simpler solution?
I cannot see any problem in your architecture or consider it overengeenered as a OData is a standard protocol and your concept conforms the DRY principle as well.
I change the question: Why would you implement the same business logic in each client to introduce more possible bugs and loose the possibility to fix the errors at one single and centralized place. Your idea makes you able to implement the security layer only once.
OData is a cross-platform standard and you can find a OData libraries for each development platform (MSDN, OData.org, JayData for JavaScript). Furthermore, you can use OData FunctionImports/Service methods and entity-level methods, which will simplify your queries.
If you are running multiplatform development, then you may find more practical to choose platform-agnostic communication protocol, such as HTTP, rather than bringing multiple drivers and ORMs to access your data Sources directly. In addition since OData is a REST protocol, you don't need much on the Client side: anything that can format OData HTTP requests and parse HTTP responses. There are however a few aspects to be aware of:
OData server is not a replacement for an SQL database. It supports batches but they are not the same as DB transactions (although in many cases can be used to model transactional operations). It supports parent-child relations but it does not support JOINs in classic SQL sense. So you have to plan what you expose as OData entity. It's too easy to build an OData server using WCF Data Services wrapping EF model. Too easy because People often expose low Level database content instead of building high level domain types.
As for today an OData multiplatorm clients are still under development, but they are coming. If I may suggest something I am personally working on, have a look at Simple.Data OData adapter (https://github.com/simplefx/Simple.OData, look at its Wiki pages for examples) - it has a NuGet package. While this a Client Library that only supports .NET 4.0, part of it is being extracted to be published as a portable class Library Simple.OData.Client to support .NET 4.x, Windows Store, Silverlight 5, Windows Phone 8, Android and iOS. In fact, if you check winrt branch of the Git repository, you will find a multiplatform PCL already, it's just not published on NuGet yet.
I was looking at how you can create a WCF data service around an entity framework context and you can consume it as an EF context as well.
Creating an OData API for StackOverflow including XML and JSON in 30 minutes
I really just started looking at this, but I was wondering where would the business logic go? As a service I would expect that you couldn't just freely add/delete etc without it having some validation.
If I wrote an MVC app to consume this service, how would I best implement business logic. Not simple property level validation that you could do with attributes, but more complex stuff that needs to check the data store first etc.
It sounds like you need a custom data service provider (msdn link). They're quite powerful and give you full control over all of your reading/writing logic.
For example I wrote one that enforces our licensing logic in the update provider.
You can put some in the Data Service class, but you are limited as to what you can and can't do there. And then of course you can put some in the client above the service, but that's not ideal either.
I've only spent a few weeks with WCF Data Services but you highlight (one of) the big problems with it - lack of flexibility. It's fantastic for rapid development and banging out LOB applications, but anything with a deliberate design is very difficult to implement. I needed to include objects in my entity model simply to allow them to be exposed through the service, and I had huge headaches just trying to extend those classes with a simple property.
I'd only recommend using WCF Data Services for trivially simple applications that needed extremely fast development - a one or two day development cycle, for example. Anything else is worth doing thoroughly with regular WCF services, writing your own data layer and so on.
Depending on your specific needs, it sounds like Web API might be a good fit. Web API may never get the full range of OData support that WCF Data Services has, but it does make certain things easier (like adding business logic). I'm quite confident that Web API's initial support for OData will cover a significant number of use cases, and that support will grow over time.
While a custom data provider will most certainly do about anything you want and may well be a great solution for you if you have a complex architecture, I wasn't really thrilled when I attempted to save back through the client and found out I had to implement my the IUpdatable Interface as part of my Context.(I was attempting to build a repository pattern out of my context and DataService).
I'm sure it's very useful for many people, but I really only needed the functionality the EntityProvider already contained and didn't have the time in my project schedule to figure the Iupdatable piece of the custom provider out, so my team, specifically Geoff , stuck with the Entity Provider and used Change and Query Interceptors to route the DataService requests through our Business Logic classes on the server. It provides a central point of control. We used these to provide security checks, run calculations and other operations on Insert/Update, etc. Turned out great. You can also use service methods as another way to provide specific business logic functions to your clients.
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.
We are having some discussions about use of WCF and creation of services and client support.
Currently we support a silverlight client by providing silverlight versions of our service libraries client side, so that we can keep the strong typing of our service contract which is defined using interfaces.
This is ok, but having the service defined with interfaces makes it awkward for other clients as the WSDL has a lot of methods return ArrayOfAnyType and everything is just objects at the client end (which can be cast to the correct type, but as I said, its awkward).
We could rewrite our services to use explicit DTOs for the message transfer and recreate our business objects using similar client side libraries, which would make our service much more interoperable.
Doing this though would seem to block off some options for us, such as using EntityFramework and the self tracking entities it provides as these require the same libraries to be shared on client and server and are not interoperable (correct me if I've got this wrong)
It seems like there is a trade off between being interoperable and having access to more functionality out of the box, allowing for quicker development of solutions.
So my question is what advantages do we gain by deciding to be non interoperable and only supporting .net and silverlight client (if supporting silverlight clients can be considered non interoperable)? And what useful .net features do we block ourselves off from by deciding to be interoperable?
Are there standard techniques for allowing both types of solution to co exist, so you can support .net clients using the full range of features available to you, but still support other non .net clients well?
You can use the Facade Pattern for this.
Move your current logic to the business layer, do not expose it via WCF.
Now create 2 WCF services one for each of the contracts you wish to support. This layer will map the business layer objects to the contract objects and call functionality in the business layer.
You then have a central place for all logic and custom services for each client.
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.)