i have recently been involved in developing a WCF service which acts as a kind of multicast relay (i.e. accepts some incoming data, does some processing and then sends it off to multiple other external services). this service (which i will refer to as "my service") is fed data by a second internal service.
this data is going to be relayed from my service as XML held in a string. therefore my service could simply accept a string as an parameter to a method request - but this is not ideal as we lose type safety.
the second service has a class that encapsulates all of the information which my service requires to be processed, and eventually relayed to the external services.
the second service exposes this class in it's data contract. Ideally, in order to maintain type safety, and without requiring lots of changes to the second service's implementation, i should accept this type of class as an argument to my service operation.
what would be the best way for me to say in my datacontract that i require this type of class without duplicating code? could i add a service reference to this second class, and then use the proxy class which is created in my data contract?
i just can't get my head around this, even though it seems like a trivial problem!
cheers for any help!
If you are trying to avoid duplication of classes, put your class declaration in its own assembly and share that dll between all parties in the WCF Service. When you create your service reference you can choose which assemblies are shared (assuming you use the VS GUI service utility).
The use of a proxy class might be a good avenue as well. If you expose your main data class as a data contract, then create a proxy of that, the proxy will have a version of the exposed class that can be used by your other services.
Related
The project I'm currently working on includes a server that receives C# scripts (partial code) from clients, wraps it to create a complete class, compiles it then load it into a separate AppDomain for execution.
A task (currently running script) can send feedback to the user at any point of it's execution, as defined in the script by the user. And possibly the task might wait for a response from the user (currently assuming it's only right after having sent feedback). And the user might, at any moment, decide to kill a task.
The server is implemented as a Windows Service hosting a WCF Service Library.
As I don't want to overcomplicate the client to make it communicate directly with the dynamically created AppDomains, the (partial) solution that I considered after some research was hosting a second WCF service with named pipe binding to make the dynamic AppDomains use it as a relay between them and the client facing WCF service.
My issue is that now I can't think of a clean way to have the two WCF services interact.
My ideas are:
Having them maintain direct references to each other:
Seeing as Normally both of the services are singletons it shouldn't be hard to do.
But that would be a pain to maintain in the case one of them fails and needs to be restarted. (I'm still new to WCF so I have no idea how common that is, but it's still an issue to consider. I think.)
Introducing some sort of a "message queue" (or two, one for each direction) with properties that can be set and subscribed to. Thus when one service sets a property an event will be triggered in the second. But that feels somewhat hacky to me, even though I can't really think of any clear issues.
I could really use some expert input on what I'm trying to accomplish, be it opinions on my thoughts or new ideas. Even if that involves rethinking the architecture. This project is still in an early enough stage to afford some rework, as long as there is enough reason to do that of course.
Since I've put lots of efforts (read: 2 minutes on paint) to prepare a quick (read: useless) schema of the system, I'll link it here since I don't have the reputation to post images:
Link to schema
Edit:
As I now have the reputation thanks to an upvote:
Still after rereading my question, I feel that perhaps I have been looking at this issue from a too narrow perspective by thinking of the services as something more special than ordinary classes. The more I think about it the more I feel that the observer pattern is probably the best approach to take.
Just for the record, and to avoid leaving my (silly) question unanswered, I've realised that I was looking at this too narrowly by trying to find a solution specific to WCF services.
And finally I ended up using a variation of the observer pattern (based on the IObservable<T>Interface).
I came across the same issue. The way I handled a duplex communication between the two servers is as following:
For each process (AppDomain Seperated Task) create a pair of WCF services. Both services have their Instancing set to PerSession (no need for singleton which may cause problems in the long run like disconnect). This means the Client will be communicating for each process (AppDomain Separated Task) with two distinct Service instances or a service pair (i.e. Service1 and Service2).
We want a duplex communication in between these two services, which means that both can communicate with the other and pass data (in the form of a DataContract class object).
For this:
1- Declare two services (i.e. in a separate class library) and host them (self hosting or else).
2- Create your DataContract class and add any property, collection, enum etc. as you like. Both services must have a get-set property for this class.
3- In the same class library (where the Service1 and 2 classes reside), create another class. This class will act as a depository for the Service pair instances. It has a static List in order to register the service pair instances (you can identify each service with a GUID).
4- We setup the client proxy using svcUtil.exe (or by code). When the client makes a service request, a service (i.e. service1) will be created by the WCF. At service1, create or launch the process (App Domain Separated Task) as client2 and at its constructor create the Service2 proxy by code.
5- Initialize the Service2 instance (i.e. by a call to the service2) and register the service pair instances at static list of the depository (so that it can be retrieved later for duplex communication). Now we have both service instances and both of them are registered as a pair into a static list.
6- Start communication between both services by making a call from Client1 proxy.
7- At Service1 call method, retrieve the service pair from the static list. Deep copy (DeepClone) the Datacontract class object from Service1 to the Service2 using the get-set property mentioned at (2). (Note that you can use one of the many Deep Clone libraries from Nuget like DeepCloner).
8- Make a call back from Service2. Client2 now has the identical DataContract class property values as Client1
9- Repeat steps 6-8 for Client2 proxy for Service2-Service1 communication.
I wrote a couple of simple web methods (as a part of WCF service) that use a couple of (more complex) classes as input/returned parameters. Each web method attributed by [OperationContract], each data class attributed by [DataContract], each data field in the classes attributed by [DataMethod].
On the client side I can call these web methods by adding Service Reference.
All things are fine, but when I create an instance of some of the data classes above on client side, their constructors don't run.
Because it's a little complicate to initialize each instance, every time, I thought there is some way to initialize instances on client side by their own constructors.
Thanks in advance!
Ilan.
Methods exposed on data contracts (including constructors) in your service are only for service applications. Adding service reference will recreated only data structure of your data contract classes because service description is not able to describe logic and logic cannot be serialized.
All classes created with service reference are partial. You can create your own partial class and add your own custom constructors or you can share the assembly with data contracts between your service and client (but it will share all logic added to your data contract classes which is most often what you don't want). Sharing assembly will tightly couple your client and service.
I am writing an application that is consuming an in-house WCF-based REST service and I'll admit to being a REST newbie. Since I can't use the "Add Service Reference", I don't have ready-made proxy objects representing the return types from the service methods. So far the only way I've been able to work with the service is by sharing the assembly containing the data types exposed by the service.
My problem with this arrangment is that I see only two possibilities:
Implement DTOs (DataContracts) and expose those types from my service. I would still have to share an assembly but this approach would limit the types contained in the assembly to the service contract and DTOs. I don't like to use DTOs just for the sake of using them, though as they add another layer of abstraction and processing time to convert from domain object to DTO and vice versa. Plus, if I want to have business rules, validation, etc. on the client, I'd have to share the domain objects anyways, so is the added complexity necessary.
Support serialization of my domain objects, expose those types and share that assembly. This would allow me to share business and validation logic with the client but it also exposes parts of my domain objects to the client that are meant only for the service app.
Perhaps an example would help the discussion...
My client application will display a list of documents that is obtained from the REST service (a GET operation). The service returns an array of DocumentInfo objects (lightweight, read-only representation of a Document).
When the user selects one of the items, the client retrieves the full Document object from the REST service (GET by id) and displays a data entry form so the user can modify the object. We would want validation rules for a rich user experience.
When the user commits the changes, the Document object is submitted to the REST service (a PUT operation) where it is persisted to the back-end data store.
If the state of the Document allows, the user may "Publish" the Document. In this case, the client POSTs a request to the REST service with the Document.ID value and the service performs the operation by retrieving the server-side Document domain object and calling the Publish method. The Publish method should not be available to the client application.
As I see it, my Document and DocumentInfo objects would have to be in a shared assembly. Doing this makes Document.Publish available to the client. One idea to hide it would be to make the method internal and add an InternalsVisibleTo attribute that allows my service app to call the method and not the client but this seems "smelly."
Am I on the right track or completely missing something?
The classes you use on the server should not be the same classes you use on the client (apart from during the data transfer itself). The best approach is to create a package (assembly/project) containing DTOs, and share these between the server and the client. You did mention that you don't want to create DTO's for the sake of it, but it is best practice. The performance impact of adding extra layers is negligible, and layering actually helps make your application easier to develop and maintain (avoiding situations like yours where the client has access to server code).
I suggest starting with the following packages:
Service: Resides on server only, exposes the service and contains server application logic.
DTO: Resides on both server and client. Contains simple classes which contain data which need to be passed between server and client. Classes have no code apart from properties. These are short lived objects which survive long enough only to transfer data.
Repository: Resides on client only. Calls the server, and turns Model objects into DTO's (and vice versa).
Model: Resides on client only. Contains classes which represent business objects and relationships. Model objects stay in memory throughout the life of the application.
Your client application code should call into Repository to get Model objects (you might also consider looking into MVVM if your not sure how to go about this).
If your service code is sufficiently complex that it needs access to Model classes, you should create a separate Model package (obviously give it a different name) - the only classes which should exist both on server and client are DTO classes.
I thought that I'd post the approach I took while giving credit to both Greg and Jake for helping guide me down the path.
While Jake is correct that deserializing the data on the client can be done with any type as long as it implements the same data contract, enforcing this without WSDL can be a bit tricky. I'm in an environment where other developers will be working with my solution both to support and maintain the existing as well as creating new clients that consume my service. They are used to "Add Service Reference" and going.
Greg's points about using different objects on the client and the server were the most helpful. I was trying to minimize duplicate by sharing my domain layer between the client and the server and that was the root of my confusion. As soon as I separated these into two distinct applications and looked at them in isolation, each with their own use cases, the picture became clearer.
As a result, I am now sharing a Contracts assembly which contains my service contracts so that a client can easily create a channel to the server (using WCF on the client-side) and data contracts representing the DTOs passed between client and service.
On the client, I have ViewModel objects which wrap the Model objects (data contracts) for the UI and use a service agent class to communicate with the service using the service contracts from the shared assembly. So when the user clicks the "Publish" button in the UI, the controller (or command in WPF/SL) calls the Publish method on the service agent passing in the ID of the document to publish. The service agent relays the request to the REST API (Publish operation).
On the server, the REST API is implemented using the same service contracts. In this case, the service works with my domain services, repositories and domain objects to carry out the tasks. So when the Publish service operation is invoked, the service retrieves the Document domain object from the DocumentRepository, calls the Publish method on the object which updates the internal state of the object and then the service passes the updated object to the Update method of the repository to persist the changes.
I am pleased with the outcome as I believe this gives me a more robust and extensible architecture to work with. I can change the ViewModels as needed to support the UI with no concern over poluting the service(s) and, likewise, change the internal implementation of the service operations (domain layer) without affecting the client application(s). All that binds the two are the contracts they share. Pretty clean.
You can serialize your domain objects and then de-serialize them into different types on the client. Both types need to implement the same data contract. All serializable types have at least a default data contract that includes all public read/write properties and fields.
I'm working on a simple plug-in framework. WCF client need to create an instance of 'ISubject' and then send back to service side. The 'ISubject' can be extended by the user. The only thing client knows at runtime is ID of a subclass of 'ISubject'.
Firstly, client need to get type information of a specific subclass of 'ISubject'. Secondly, client using reflection to enumerate all members to create a custom property editor so that each member can be asigned with proper value. Lastly, client create an instance of that subclass and send back to service.
The problem is how does client get the type information through WCF communication?
I don't want client to load that assembly where the subclass (of 'ISubject') exists.
Thanks
First, you need to be aware that there is no magic way that WCF will provide any type information to your client in the scenario you have descibed. If you are going to do it, you will have to provide a mechanism yourself.
Next, understand that WCF does not really pass objects from server to client or vice versa. All it passes are XML infosets. Often, the XML infoset passed includes a serialized representation of some object which existed on the sender's side; in this case, if the client knows about that type (i.e. can load the type's metadata from its assembly), it can deserialize the XML to instantiate an identical object on the client side. If the client doesn't have the type metadata, it can't: this is the normal case with WCF unless data contract types are in assemblies shared by both server and client implementations (generally not a good idea).
The way WCF is normally used (for example if the client is implemented using a "Service Reference" in Visual Studio), what happens is that the service publishes WSDL metadata describing its operations and the XML schemas for the operation parameters and return values, and from these a set of types is generated for use in the client implementation. These are NOT the same .NET types as the data contract types used by the service implementation, but they are "equivalent" in the sense that they can be serialized to the same XML data passed over the network. Normally this type generation is done at design time in Visual Studio.
In order to do what you are trying to do, which is essentially to do this type generation at runtime, you will need some mechanism by which the client can get sufficient knowledge of the structure of the XML representing the various types of object implementing ISubject so that it can understand the XML received from the service and generate the appropriate XML the service is expecting back (either working with the XML directly, or deserializing/serializing it in some fashion). If you really, really want to do this, possible ways might be:
some out-of-band mechanism whereby the client is preconfigured with the relevant type information corresponding to each subclass of ISubject that it might see. The link provided in blindmeis's answer is one way to do that.
provide a separate service operation by which the client can translate the ID of the subclass to type metadata for the subclass (perhaps as an XSD schema from which the client could generate a suitable serializable .NET type to round trip the XML).
it would also be feasible in principle for the service to pass type metadata in some format within the headers of the response containing the serialized object. The client would need to read, interpret and act on the type infomation in an appropriate fashion.
Whichever way, it would be a lot of effort and is not the standard way of using WCF. You will have to decide if it's worth it.
I think you might be missing something :)
A major concept with web services and WCF is that we can pass our objects across the network, and the client can work with the same objects as the server. Additionally, when a client adds a service reference in Visual Studio, the server will send the client all the details it needs to know about any types which will be passed across the network.
There should be no need for reflection.
There's a lot to cover, but I suggest you start with this tutorial which covers WCF DataContracts - http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WCF/WCFHostingAndConsuming.aspx
To deserialize an object the receiving side will need to have the assembly the type is defined in.
Perhaps you should consider some type of remoting or proxying setup where the instance of ISubject lives on one side and the other side calls back to it. This may be problematic if you need to marshal large amounts of data across the wire.
wcf needs to know the real object(not an interface!) which should be sent across the wire. so you have to satisfy the server AND the clientproxy side from the WCF service that they know the types. if you dont know the object type while creating the WCF service, you have to find a way to do it in a dynamic way. i use the solution from here to get the knownTypes to my WCF service.
[ServiceContract(SessionMode = SessionMode.Required]
[ServiceKnownType("GetServiceKnownTypes", typeof(KnownTypeHelper))]//<--!!!
public interface IWCFService
{
[OperationContract(IsOneWay = false)]
object DoSomething(object obj);
}
if you have something "universal" like the code above, you have to be sure that whatever your object at runtime will be, your WCF service have to know this object.
you wrote your client create a subclass and sent it back to the service. if you want to do that, WCF(clientproxy and server!) needs to know the real type of your subclass.
I have been trying to get up to speed on Named Pipes this week. The task I am trying to solve with them is that I have an existing windows service that is acting as a device driver that funnels data from an external device into a database. Now I have to modify this service and add an optional user front end (on the same machine, using a form of IPC) that can monitor the data as it passes between the device and the DB as well as send some commands back to the service.
My initial ideas for the IPC were either named pipes or memory mapped files. So far I have been working through the named pipe idea using WCF Tutorial Basic Interprocess Communication . My idea is to set the Windows service up with an additional thread that implements the WCF NamedPipe Service and use that as a conduit to the internals of my driver.
I have the sample code working, however I can not get my head around 2 issues that I am hoping that someone here can help me with:
In the tutorial the ServiceHost is instantiated with a typeof(StringReverser) rather than by referencing a concrete class. Thus there seems to be no mechanism for the Server to interact with the service itself (between the host.Open() and host.Close() lines). Is it possible to create a link between and pass information between the server and the class that actually implements the service? If so, how?
If I run a single instance of the server and then run multiple instance of the clients, it seems that each client gets a separate instance of the service class. I tried adding some state information to the class implementing the service and it was only retained within the instance of the named pipe. This is possibly related to the first question, but is there anyway to force the named pipes to use the same instance of the class that is implementing the service?
Finally, any thoughts on MMF vs Named Pipes?
Edit - About the solution
As per Tomasr's answer the solution lies in using the correct constructor in order to supply a concrete singleton class that implements the service (ServiceHost Constructor (Object, Uri[])). What I did not appreciate at the time was his reference to ensuring the service class was thread safe. Naively just changing the constructor caused a crash in the server, and that ultimately lead me down the path of understanding InstanceContextMode from this blog entry Instancecontextmode And Concurrencymode. Setting the correct context nicely finished off the solution.
For (1) and (2) the answer is simple: You can ask WCF to use a singleton instance of your service to handle all requests. Mostly all you need to do is use the alternate ServiceHost constructor that takes an Object instance instead of a type.
Notice, however, that you'll be responsible for making your service class thread safe.
As for 3, it really depends a lot on what you need to do, your performance needs, how many clients you expect at the same time, the amount of data you'll be moving and for how long it needs to be available, etc.