We're using about 7 services at the moment. There quite large.
Does anyone have any experience with the single responsibility principle and WCF services? Does this mean that you'll end up with lot's of small contracts? If so, how do you manage these in your application?
I think you are confusing single responsibility with interface segregation.
From the client/service interface perspective, you should keep your contracts lean and mean. See below for an example of that.
On the SRP side of things, that should be entirely internal to the service implementation and the client should not be aware of this. If you service code is too large, split it up into classes. Then have your service code, at least initially, act as a facade and forward all the calls to the relevant objects. Later on, you have the option of spliting your service into multiple services. But be aware, that SOA and object oriented design, although overlap, are separate and have different requirements.
Interface segregation example: We have a service here at work that we use to do various functions on some business objects. The original service had one interface. As it grew, we realized we had three family of methods: data object persistence, business updates, business analysis. We split up into three contracts. Our client/service implements all 3, so the only thing we had to do was split the contract into three and setup two additional endpoints in our WCF configuration. Very simple.
Hope this helps.
I would suggest you listen to this podcast on the hanselminutes :
SOLID Principles with Uncle Bob - Robert C. Martin
It would help understand things better. . .
You could apply facade pattern for the web service that interface with the client, and in your implementation code you can apply single responsibility to make it maintainable.
Related
I am currently in the process of developing a Web Service which should expose a relatively large number of ways to interact with it.
For example, Clients may be able to interact with the Web Service in order to manage users or projects in a Database.
To that effect, I created the following classes:
Two Data Contracts: IUsersServiceContract and IProjectsServiceContract
Two Service Contracts Interfaces: IUsersServiceContract and IProjectsServiceContract
My question is the following:
Does it make sense to create two different Web Services, each with their own endpoint(s), instead of creating one big class that implements both Service Contracts Interfaces ?
Keep in mind that in reality I would have many more Service Contracts Interfaces that deal with different sorts of data.
From what I understand, using a partial class (split in multiple files) will allow me to create one big Web Service with only one Endpoint.
This has the disadvantage of dealing with one big class split in multiple files, i.e: its harder to maintain and more prone to errors if developers "don't see the big picture".
The other solution would be to have one Web Service per Service Contract Interface implemented.
In essence, if I have X Service Contracts Interfaces, I end up with X Web Services with X Endpoints.
Which solution would you choose and why ?
Thanks for your input !
Personally I would not use partial classes for splitting a class; the sheer size motivating tgis split suggests that the class is too large and needs a refactoring. In my opinion partial classes main purpose is to add changes to auto generated code.
Since service and endpoint configuration can be shared using named behaviours in web.config splitting the service should not be that cumbersome. But the split should be motivated by grouping of functionality.
Without knowing the exact nature of you services it sounds like there could be a natural separation in two services; one for user related operations and one for project oriented operations.
If the implemantation classes grows above what you think are reasonable sizes I would consider letting separate classes - or preferably interfaces - handle each methods inner logic and let the service implementation it self be a shallow facade that delegates its own method parameters to the correct logoc instance
An important thing to consider here, when you're talking about n number of service contracts, is the cost associated with implementing each service contract. There's a good blog post on that here, "Service Contracts Factoring and Design", although if it wasn't Juval Lowy who posted this article then someone is clearly ripping him off (I am referring to Juval's book - "Programming WCF Services" page 93).
Currently I am creating a WCF service which has to connect to a DAL which, just connects to a database using ADO.net and stored procedures.
The DAl writes its responses from the database to a datacontract which is passed over the wire to the client via the service.
I was reading that this may possibly be the anti pattern 'CRudy Interface', but I wasn't sure as I am sharing the datacontract.
If I am using an anti pattern, can anyone suggest a better pattern to use for the behavior I require?
Well, there seems to be some controversy about the CRUDy pattern and it's pros and cons. At a minimum, I would call a service interface that makes you write this kind of code to use it an anti-pattern (as commented here):
service.CreateCustomer(c);
foreach(Group group in c.Groups)
service.AddCustomerToGroup(c.CustomerId, group.GroupId);
foreach(Person person in c.Contacts)
service.AddCustomerContact(c.CustomerId, person);
Is exposing CRUDy interfaces bad in itself? I wouldn't say so. What's important is to provide an interface which will
encapsulate knowledge about the underlying processes
not be very chatty
It does seem like the CRUD interface anti-pattern, but it would be good to see some interface examples to confirm.
This paper has a really good discussion on designing better service interfaces.
It includes a critique on, and alternative to, the CRUD anti-pattern.
If you have a cruddy use case to implement you will get a cruddy interface, don't sweat it. The anti-pattern is when you implement non-cruddy things in a cruddy way.
What is the proper way to handle polymorphic business objects in a WCF/SOAP world?
It seems to me that SOA and OOP are at odds with each other - to expose a clean WSDL you need concrete objects, typically not even utilizing inheritance. On the other hand, presumably in the underlying system, you'll want to follow proper OO design.
What do people typically do here? Build a set of WCF contract objects, forgoing OOP principles, then convert to and from another set of objects in the actual logic layers?
What do people typically do here? Build a set of WCF contract objects, forgoing OOP principles, then convert to and from another set of objects in the actual logic layers?
Yes.
The way WCF serializes things ends up putting a lot of limitations on what you can and can't do with the contract objects. What you can't do ends up being "most anything useful".
I've found it makes things much clearer if you think of the WCF-contract objects as just a data transfer mechanism. Basically like strongly/statically typed XML.
Instead of converting your business object to an XML string (and back again), you convert your business object to a WCF-contract object (and back again), but it's otherwise similar
After reading the Thomas Erl library, I came to the following conclusion:
Think of the WCF Contracts/SOAP Message as simply a message that the Services use to communicate (don't tightly tie that to Objects in your code).
You can then use OOP to design a code-base that gracefully handles those messages using common OOP techniques.
You use an abstraction (interface type) annotated with WCF attributes in order to define your Service contract.
This is both depending on abstraction, which is according to OOP, as well as defining a service endpoint, which is SOA.
In general, if you find that you are getting business objects with dependencies, you should consider pulling such dependencies up to the service business layer as opposed to inject dependencies into the business objects.
The service business layer will then act as a mediator acting on both the WCF service proxy as well as the business objects. As opposed to having the business objects acting on the WCF service proxy.
All great comments on this topic! I'll add my vote to the notion of an adapter for mediation between your service orientation and object orientation. I also like Thomas Erl's approach where in his service model he introduces the notion of "application services" and "business services." These are the way to go for your integration points with your specific application/business environment (i.e. your object oriented and component oriented framework/API). This way should result in much better composability and thus capability, for you enterprise framework gurus out there.
WCF promotes good design by using interfaces and contracts etc. What baffles me is that, for example in my case if I have 2 sets of business functionality like ICustomerMgmtBIZ
and IProductMgmtBiz. If these two are ServiceContracts, and I have an interface like
IBusinessService:IProductMgmtBIZ,ICustomerMgmtBIZ
and implementation class BusinessService. I see that BusinessService class will be having too much implementation. The workaround I have been using so far is by implementing partial classes.
So bluntly put, can a WCF service have only 1 implementation and 1 service contract ??
No, it is possible to implement more than one Service contract on a WCF Service type (the class that is attributed with the ServiceBehavior attribute), since it is just a matter of having the class implement multiple interfaces. If you are using any of the Visual Studio templates or other kinds of code generators, this may not be immediately clear. However, although you can implement more than one Service Contract interface on a Service type, it does not do you much good if you need the service, presumably a singleton in this case(?), to behave as one service. IBusinessService implies that you need all of the service's functionality to be callable from one client proxy, so that all operations may operate in the same logical session (similar to ASPX web session). If that is not the case, then you are free to define individual proxies for each contract interface, but that will also require that you support one endpoint for each contract.
Is it an absolute requirement that you can only have on WCF ServiceHost instance for your implementation? What factors are influencing your decision?
By the way, partial classes do not trouble me anymore. The idea of splitting out code into multiple files now seems rather natural. For example, storing partial classes in files like ServiceType_IProductMgmtBiz.cs and ServiceType_ICustomerMgmtBIZ.cs seems natural enough, in addition to storing the core logic in ServiceType.cs.
Finally, the following question might be of use...
WCF and Interface Inheritance - Is this a terrible thing to do?
Bluntly put, no - sort of - yes, but. Any workaround is non-optimal and involves using an "IBlank" as a master WCF interface (where your interfaces derive from IBlank), and two endpoints, one implementing IProductMgmtBIZ and the other implementing ICustomerMgmtBIZ. I don't have my dev machine in front of me, this might involve some other overrides. So, at the WCF level you're screwed unless you want to have two WCF ServiceHosts (which is perfectly reasonable).
In short, the workaround is inelegant. Its easier to have two WCF endpoints on the same port with a different extension.
I am developing a WCF web service which has become quite bloated. What techniques do you use to split up the implementation of the contract?
Well you have a couple choices:
First, you could leave it all in one class, but split up into different files using the partial class feature of C#.
Second, you could have the main service class just pass requests off to one of a number of other actual classes that are organized logically.
A third alternative is to consider refactoring to reduce the number of operations you have. Is there actually a use to all of the methods you're exposing?
Finally, you could always split up the service into multiple WCF services.
It's hard to answer your question if you don't give any more information.
Do you mean that your service interface is bloated, or the class implementation? It's hard to answer well, if I don't see the code, or have no other information, anyway, I'll try:
Notice that WCF service is basically just a regular class that implements an interface and has some attributes on its methods. So all the other good OO design rules apply to it. Think about what it does, does it have really single responsibility, if not try to outsource some of that responsibility to other classes that your service depends on. If you need a non-default constructor, use IInstanceProvider to create the service class, and supply it with its dependencies (or if you use Windsor Container use WCF Facility).
If you really want to you can streach your inheritance chain, and move some of the code to a base class. I don't do it, however and always prefer to use composition over inheritance.
Inspect your service contract, and think about how cohesive it really is. Maybe what you should do is to split it, into few smaller, more cohesive services.