I have an application that consists of a web application, and mutliple windows services, only one windows service is installed depending on what version of the backend sofware is used.
Currently, Data is saved by the web app in a database, then the relevant service is installed and this picks up the data and posts it in to the backend system that is installed.
I want to change this to use WCF services so the resulting data is returned directly to the web app.
I have not used WCF services before but Im assuming I can do something like this.
WebApp.Objects.Dll - contains Database objects, eg PurchaseOrder object
WebApp.Service.Contracts.dll - here I can describe the service methods, this will reference the WebApp.Objects.dll so I can take a PurchaseOrder object as a parameter
WebApp.Service.2011.dll - This will be the actual service for the 2011 version of the backend system, this will reference the WebApp.Service.Contracts dll
WebApp.Service.2012.dll - This will be the actual service for the 2012 version of the backend system, this will reference the WebApp.Service.Contracts dll
So, my question is, does the web app need to know the specifics about what backend WCF service is used? I just want to call a service with the specified Interface and not care about how its implemented or what it does internally, but just to return the purchase order that was created in the backend system (whether it return an interface or a concrete class)
Will i be able to create a service client without needing to know whether its the 2011, or 2012 WCF service being used?
As long as you are able to use the exact same contract for all the versions the web application does not need to know which version of the WCF service it is accessing.
In the configuration of the web application, you specify the URL and the contract. However, besides the contract there might be other differences between the services. In an extreme example this might mean that v2011 uses a different binding as v2012 of the backend - which is not very likely from your description. But also subtle differences in the configuration or the behavior of the services should be addressed in the configuration files. E.g. if v2012 needs longer for an action as v2011 does, the timeouts need to be configured so that the longer time of v2012 does not lead to an expiration.
Related
I'm trying to create an end-to-end Application Map using Application Insights. Note all dependencies and metrics are captured and sent using the SDK.
Take the following scenario:
Windows service (batch processing) > (calls) WebAPI > (queries db)
I have 2 Application Insight resources - Windows Service and WebAPI. Both are capturing metrics but in isolation. How can I create a dependency using the SDK between resource 1 (i.e. service) and resource 2 (i.e. WebAPI)? I need to be able to view the Application Map for resource 1 and be able to see the entire end-to-end view of windows service > web service > db.
I can currently see only windows service > WebApi (App Map resource 1) or WebApi > db (App Map resource 2). Need to bring both together somehow?
Application Insights sdk only collect dependencies automatically for HTTP dependencies. Also it only works when the application insights profiler is running on the machine (often installed on azure websites through the Application Insights Extension).
If you happen to be in one of the situations where the new beta sdk is not collecting dependencies for you. You can do that on your own by writing a little bit of code yourself.
The sdk's autocollection code is open source and you can use it to guide you as to how to track these dependencies. The idea is to append the dependency telemetry's target field with the hash of the target component's instrumentation key and set the dependency type to "Application Insights".
Here is how to compute the hash: Compute Hash
Here is how to add it to the target field and set the right dependency type on the dependency telemetry object: Add component correlation to DependencyTelemetryTarget
A little word of caution. There may soon be a change to the format in which the target field is captured / the name of the dependency type (see this discussion). If and when that happens, it would be an easy enough change for you too.
My recommendation would be to use the same Application Insights resources (e.g. instrumentation key) for both your Windows Service and Web API.
You can separate your telemetry for those two services by adding a custom property indicating the service for all telemetry you emit. Easiest way to do this would be to implement a telemetry initializer (see here for documentation).
It is not possible today. Possible ways -
Use a single InstrumentationKey and identify by a custom property (as
suggested by #EranG
Export the data for both the apps and do your own thing
Please vote on this uservoice. Product team is already considering implementing this functionality in future.
I have an ASP.NET MVC 3 application that I am currently working on. I am implementing a service layer, which contains the business logic, and which is utilized by the controllers. The services themselves utilize repositories for data access, and the repositories use entity framework to talk to the database.
So top to bottom is: Controller > Service Layer > Repository (each service layer depends on a single injectable repository) > Entity Framework > Single Database.
I am finding myself making items such as UserService, EventService, PaymentService, etc.
In the service layer, I'll have functions such as:
ChargePaymentCard(int cardId, decimal amount) (part of
PaymentService)
ActivateEvent(int eventId) (part of EventService)
SendValidationEmail(int userId) (part of UserService)
Also, as an example of a second place I am using this, I have another simple console application that runs as a scheduled task, which utilizes one of these services. There is also an upcoming second web application that will need to use multiple of these services.
Further, I would like to keep us open to splitting things up (such as our single database) and to moving to a service-oriented architecture down the road, and breaking some of these out into web services (conceivably even to be used by non-.NET apps some day). I've been keeping my eyes open for steps that might make make the leap to SOA less painful down the road.
I have started down the path of creating a separate assembly (DLL) for each service, but am wondering if I have started down the wrong path. I'm trying to be flexible and keep things loosely coupled, but is this path helping me any (towards SOA or in general), or just adding complexity? Should I instead by creating a single assembly/dll, containing my entire service layer, and use that single assembly wherever any services need to be used?
I'm not sure the implications of the path(s) I'm starting down, so any help on this would be appreciated!
IMO - answer is it depends on a lot of factors of your application.
Assuming that you are building a non-trivial application (i.e. is not a college/hobby project to learn SOA):
User Service / Event Service / Payment Service
-- Create its own DLL & expose it as a WCF service if there are more than one applications using this service and if it is too much risk to share the DLL to different application
-- These services should not have inter-dependencies between each other & should focus on their individual area
-- Note: these services might share some common services like logging, authentication, data access etc.
Create a Composition Service
-- This service will do the composition of calls across all the other service
-- For example: if you have an Order placed & the business flow is that Order Placed > Confirm User Exists (User Service) > Raise an OrderPlaced event (Event Service) > Confirm Payment (Payment Service)
-- All such composition of service calls can be handled in this layer
-- Again, depending on the environment, you might choose to expose this service as its own DLL and/or expose it as a WCF
-- Note: this is the only service which will share the references to other services & will be the single point of composition
Now - with this layout - you will have options to call a service directly, if you want to interact with that service alone & you will need to call the composition service if you need a business work flow where different services need to be composed to complete the transaction.
As a starting point, I would recommend that you go through any of the books on SOA architecture - it will help clear a lot of concepts.
I tried to be as short as possible to keep this answer meaningful, there are tons of ways of doing the same thing, this is just one of the possible ways.
HTH.
Having one DLL per service sounds like a bad idea. According to Microsoft, you'd want to have one large assembly over multiple smaller ones due to performance implications (from here via this post).
I would split your base or core services into a separate project and keep most (if not all) services in it. Depending on your needs you may have services that only make sense in the context of a web project or a console app and not anywhere else. Those services should not be part of the "core" service layer and should reside in their appropriate projects.
It is better to separate the services from the consumers. In our peojects we have two levels of separation. We used to group all the service interfaces into one Visual Studio project. All the Service Implementations are grouped into another project.
The consumer of the services needs to reference two dll but it makes the solution more maintainable and scalable. We can have multiple implementations of the services.
For e.g. the service interface can define a contract for WebSearch in the interfaces project. And there can be multiple implementations of the WebSearch through different search service providers like Google search, Bing search, Yahoo search etc.
We need to expose some services (i.e. AddressValidatorService, CustomerFinderService) that currently reside in an ASP.NET application to other applications within our organization. Exposing these services via WCF seems like a natural fit, but I don't see any best-practices for how to pull these common services into a WCF wrapper in such a way that my existing ASP.NET application can continue to use them with minimal code changes and/or awareness that the service they are consuming is no longer in-process.
I'm especially looking for recommendations on how to structure the existing ASP.NET solution and whether to host our new WCF in the same solution or in some new shared WCF solution referenced by both our ASP.NET application and external callers.
Also, is it bad practice to simply promote the DTOs currently only consumed in-process via ASP.NET to full fledged data contracts or is it preferable to create duplicate DTOs that are explicitly decorated with [DataContract]? The latter seems like a maintenance nightmare.
To answer your second question:
Also, is it bad practice to simply promote the DTOs currently only consumed in-process via ASP.NET to full fledged data contracts or is it preferable to create duplicate DTOs that are explicitly decorated with [DataContract]? The latter seems like a maintenance nightmare.
It is considered a bad practice to expose your business model as WCF contracts. So if your DTOs are replicas of your domain model then it would be a strict no-no, because
1. any change in the model would directly effect the contracts and hence all the clients using it
2. you would be exposing your business "know-how" to the outside world.
The latter can tend to get difficult for any evolving system, but then you have various open source tools (like AutoMapper) that ease your mapping nighmares.
You can convert an existing project to WCF, then continue to use it in-process by using a project reference. It can then be consumed by an eternal source using the WCF client. A WCF client converts the class name from ClassName to ClassNameClient when consumed over WCF, but the class will function pretty much the same.
For example:
MyClass obj = new MyClass();
obj.DoSomething(withData);
Would become:
MyClassClient obj = new MyClassClient();
obj.DoSomething(withData);
You would publish the WCF project to some endpoint, like address.example.com, then use a service reference to the endpoint to reference the code, like a project reference, in your other projects.
Note that while the externally referencing projects would not be impacted by the change or know that the data is going over the network, if you have chatty calls to the project in question, it will definitely take a performance hit. You may want to consolidate related methods into single methods to save on round-tripping.
If these are exposed as static page services, there's no magic wrapper -- you're going to need to move code to a standalone service implementation class and put a .svc file in front of it. (Or use WCF4 fileless activation, or a service factory, but that's getting a bit away from the core question here.)
If these are exposed as ASMX, you can actually put an ASMX facade in front of a WCF service class and get basic HTTP/XML/ASMX responses as you would from your legacy ASMX webservices. You an expose that same WCF service class through standard WCF configuration for non-legacy consumers.
Finally, you can expose any WCF service as basicHTTP with serviceMetadata + httpGetEnabled, and you'll get a service endpoint usable by legacy consumers of an ASMX service.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms751433.aspx
I'm working on a web service that uses ASP.NET security model (i.e. with AspNetCompatibilityRequirements set to allowed). Like many others, I got an error saying the Anonymous access is required because the mexHttpBinding requires it and the only way to get around it is to remove the mex endpoint from each service as described here:
WCF - Windows authentication - Security settings require Anonymous
I thought by removing mex endpoint I will no longer able to generate WSDL or add a reference to the service from Visual Studio but to my surprise everything still works. I quickly googled the "mex binding" but most web sites just say it's for "Metadata Exchange" without going into too much detail on what it actually does.
Can anyone tell me what's the side effect of removing the mex binding?
If your WCF service does not expose service metadata, you cannot add a service reference to it, neither from within Visual Studio (Add Service Reference), nor will another client be able to interrogate your service for its methods and the data it needs.
Removing Metadata Exchange (mex) basically renders the service "invisible", almost - a potential caller must find out some other way (e.g. by being supplied with a WSDL file, or by getting a class library assembly with a client he can use) about what the service can do, and how.
This might be okay for high risk environment, but most of the time, being able to interrogate the service and have it describe itself via metadata is something you want to have enabled. That's really one of the main advantages of a SOAP based service - by virtue of metadata, it can describe itself, its operations, all the data structures needed. That feature is used to make it really easy to call that service - you just point to the mex endpoint, and you can find out all you need to know about that service.
Without the metadata exchange, you won't be able to use svcutil.exe to automatically generate the proxy classes.
I have an ASP.NET MVC web app whose controllers use WCF to call into the domain model on a different server. The domain code needs to talk to a database and access to the database server isn't always possible from web servers (depends on the customer site) hence the use of WCF to get to a place where my code is allowed to connect to the database server.
This is configurable so if the controllers are able to access the database server directly then I use local instances of the domain objects rather than use WCF.
Lets say I have a page asking for person details like age, name etc. This is a complex type that is a parameter on my WCF operation like this :
[OperationContract]
string SayHello( Person oPerson);
When I generate the client code (eg; by adding a service reference in my client) I get a separate Person class that fulfills the wcf contract. The client, an MVC web app, can use this client Person class as the view model and all is well. I pass that straight into the WCF client methods and it all works brilliantly.
If my mvc client app is configured to NOT use WCF I have a problem. If I am calling my domain objects directly from the controller (assume I have a domain access factory/provider setup) then I need the original Person class and not the wcf generated Person class. This results in my problem which is that I will have to perform mapping from one object to another if I don't use WCF
The main problem with this is that there are many domain objects that will need to be mapped and errors may be introduced such as new properties forgotten about in future changes
I'm learning and experimenting with WCF and MVC can you help me know what my options are in this scenario? I'm sure there will be an easy way out of this given the extensibility of WCF and MVC
Thanks
It appears that you are not actually trying to use a service-oriented architecture. In this case, you can place the domain objects into a single assembly, and share it between the WCF service and the clients. When creating the clients, use "Add Service Reference", and on the "Advanced" tab, choose "Share Types". Either choose to share all types, or choose the list of assemblies whose types you want to share.
Sound service-oriented-architecture dictates that you use message based communication regardless of whether your service is on another machine, in another process, in another appdomain, or in your appdomain. You can use different endpoints with different bindings to take advantage of the speed of the link (http, tcp, named pipes) based on the location of your service, but the code using that service would remain the same.
This may not be the easiest or least time-consuming answer, but one thing you can do is avoid using the "add service reference" option, and then copy your contract interfaces to your MVC application and initiate the connection to WCF manually without automatically creating a service proxy. This will allow you to use one set of classes for your model objects and you can control explicitly when to use WCF or not.
There's a good series of webcasts on WCF by Michele Leroux Bustamante, and I think in episode 2, she explains how to do exactly this. Check it out here: http://www.dasblonde.net/WCFWebcastSeries.aspx
Hope this helps!
One sound option is that you always use WCF, even if client and server are in the same process, as Aviad points out.
Another option is to define the service contracts on interfaces, and to put these, together with the data contracts into an assembly that is shared between client and server. In the client, don't use svcutil or a service reference; instead, use ClientFactory<T>.
This way, your client code will use the same interfaces and classes as the server.