I have been using asp.net MVC for around 1.5 years, am enjoying its capabilities, and have deployed many successful web applications, but I'm currently reading about the asp.net Web API technology. And, I find the following:
I can implement any functionality that I used to implement using MVC; using the new Web API and in a more lightweight approach.
It is easier to develop web services using the Web API comparing the asp.net MVC.
So, will the asp.net Web API take over asp.net MVC in the future, or each technology will have its own area to grow in, or should we consider using both of them in the same web application?
Besides the #jmoerdyk's answer, I would like to point something out:
The key is to understand the goal of each technology:
Web API.
This will be the new API for creating web services, this is an alternative to traditional XML services and WCF services, so it's worth pointing out first the main difference between WEB API and the rest of the Web service frameworks.
The primary difference between Web API and WCF/ASMX services is that it's not based on SOAP it's based on HTTP Therefore you can take advantage of all the HTTP features like:
It contains message headers that are very meaningful and descriptive - headers that suggest the content type of the message’s body, headers that explain how to cache information, how to secure it etc.
use of verbs to define the actions (POST, PUT, DELETE..)
it contains a body that can be used to send any kind of content
It uses URIs for identifying both information paths (resources) and actions
That was the main goal of the Web APIs, known back then as the WCF Web APIs: to stop looking at HTTP through the eyes of WCF - as just a transport protocol to pass requests. Rather, it allows us to look at it as the real application-level protocol it is – a rich, interoperable, resource-oriented protocol. The purpose of the Web APIs was to properly use URIs, HTTP headers, and body to create HTTP services for the web, and for everyone else that wished to embrace HTTP as its protocol and lifelong friend.
Take a look to this article for more information: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/341414/WCF-or-ASP-NET-Web-APIs-My-two-cents-on-the-subjec
So basically the Web API could actually be compared against WCF or XML Services
If you are wondering what's going to happen with WCF?
So the fact was we had too many options and therefore too much confusion. What were we to do? We merge teams! (Kind of reminds us of the time of LINQ-to-SQL and Entity Framework, WCF and Ado.Net Data Services and other such examples). So the WCF team and the ASP.NET team joined forces and created a new framework focused on the world of REST/Hypermedia/HTTP services for the web world and thus came out the ASP.NET Web APIs.
MVC
Now that you know what's the goal of the Web API, then it should be easier to say why MVC contains additional functionality to render views primarily.
Your concern is based on the fact that WEB API is actually based on MVC, but their goals are different
On the other hand, the ASP.NET MVC infrastructure with its elegant handling of HTTP requests and responses, and its support of easy-to-create controllers seemed like the proper way to go for creating this new type of services
No, they don't really do the same thing.
Web API is really only for generating JSON, XML or other text based responses for implementing REST based APIs. MVC can do that as well, but the new Web API appears to make it easier, particularly with the automatic content type negotiation.
What MVC does that Web API is not intended for is generating full or partial HTML pages with Views and such.
So each one has their own purpose in the ASP.Net framework and not likely to surpass the other.
WebAPI and MVC are two different things, but they both work in the same framework. WebAPI is used for restful services. MVC is used for web pages.
You can create restful services in MVC, with a lot more work than in WebAPI. The reverse is not true. You can't create Web pages in WebAPI. Therefore, your question is fundamentally confused.
They are going to be merged in new versions, technically both works similar, but API don't have views attached so delivers better performance
Related
Cenario
Website: ASP.Net MVC 5 managing models, controllers and views.
Api: RESTful Web api managing models, controllers and returning JSON
The problem: Code duplication in BL. We are always redoing the same logic in both places.
The approach I have in mind:
Take the BL out of the Website MVC and keep it only in Web Api in a separated VS solution
The Website now is a consumer of Web Api
About the content negotiation, I think in two options:
Web Api "knows" which format to return (ViewResult, JSON or XML) and serialize/deserialize in BL depending of who is requesting (website, mobile apps, etc.). The advantage I see is to keep taking
advantage of strongly typed model to render a view in Website
Web Api always return JSON and the consumer app handle result in client
Questions:
Is this approach a good practise?
Which is better: Web Api always returning JSON or a smart Web Api who "knows" which format to return?
Like #David said, you don't really need to consume web services in your MVC controllers. You could just design it in such a way that your MVC and API layers are just another "view" to your Business layer. So, in case you are thinking in a terms of your visual studio solution, your might have a Data layer project, a Business layer project and 2 front end projects MVC and API.
I can't find anything on the implementation of service discovery for the ASP.NET Web API. For a new project I need to make a decision between WCF and Web API. The service element will be consumed by a variety of clients, mobile, client-side JavaScript but also an ASP.NET website.
For the website the convenience of being able to generate a client against a WCF service is obviously a plus. I am not that familiar with RESTful web services but I see that there is Web Application Description Language (WADL). Maybe it is my ignorance but surely it is a good thing to be able to advertise the correct way to consume your service?
My main question: is there anything that generates a WADL or similar for WEB API?
Secondary question: this tool looks like it generates a client based on a WADL, is there anything else that makes life easy keeping a client up to date with a RESTful web service?
There is a considerable amount of work going in there. It is not finished but watch the space.
Having a look here (and newer Yao posts):
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/yaohuang1/archive/2012/05/21/asp-net-web-api-generating-a-web-api-help-page-using-apiexplorer.aspx
Also
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/yaohuang1/archive/2012/06/15/using-apiexplorer-to-export-api-information-to-postman-a-chrome-extension-for-testing-web-apis.aspx
I blogged an approach to generating WADL with ASP.NET Web API here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/stuartleeks/archive/2014/05/20/teaching-asp-net-web-api-to-wadl.aspx
Or is Rails by itself just good for developing APIs?
It seems that ASP.NET Web API project types have some history intertwined with WCF (as is detailed in this post for example), so maybe it's not applicable to Rails.
UPDATE
To clarify, Microsoft has the ASP.NET MVC framework. Recently, they came out with a framework called ASP.NET Web API. ASP.NET Web API seems to have similarities to ASP.NET MVC, but is specialized and trimmed down for RESTful web services. Is there an equivalent in the Ruby/Rails space?
So, the answer is Yes to both questions. Rails does have an equivalent and its Rails.
ASP.NET Web API looks like at it's heart is just a RESTful router with type negotiation. I could be totally off base here, but from the tutorials I saw that's what it looked like to me.
So yes, from what I can tell, Rails supports most of the things that the Web API was created for. In fact in Rails most of this stuff is forced onto you until you become informed enough to be able to change it (assuming by that point you know better than to actually do that).
But, as far as Web API functionality. That really comes from the ability to support HTTP verbs (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) which Rails does.
But a source of confusion might be that in Rails the RESTful API is actually the application itself. Meaning you don't need to implement any other libraries, it's just built that way.
Here's a quick example of that I mean
When you hit /users/1 you will get the data associated with that user depending on the format you requested. So if you request JSON the controller returns JSON, HTML you get HTML, XML you get XML, etc. (As long as said format is implemented for that resource)
A good overview of what I'm talking about are in these two sections:
Rails Guides::Controller: Rendering xml and json data
Rails Guides::Routing: Resources on the Web
So you could build a website, API, or both in a Rails app and they would all start the same way.
But from my limited knowledge on the matter, I would say a ASP.NET MVC with ASP.NET Web API program is actually a lot more like a Rails Program than the regular ASP.NET MVC programs that came before them.
Or it's all just a clever ploy to get as many Capital Letters in a title as humanly possible.
Take a look at grape. It is a pure "Rest" HTTP API framework in ruby.
WSO2 looks like a generic web services framework (as opposed to MVC like Rails) I can't vouch for it but it seems to be more a service framework in the style of WCF Web API (service in the generic sense, not just SOAP).
It's difficult to know what you mean by "APIs"... Rails and ASP are used for developing web sites, and WCF is essentially a web service platform. ASP and WCF have little in common, it's just normal for ASP applications to consume WCF services because they all run on the same stack and platform.
I suppose Rails on the Microsoft side would be a combination of ASP.NET MVC, Linq2SQL or EntityFramework and some WCF.
Ok, this isn't a direct answer to your question, however there seems to be some confusion... Microsoft's ASP.NET Web API is specifically a product offering with ASP.NET MVC 4+. It is a RESTful framework. How does it compare to RoR? I don't know having never tried to install RoR on Windows. As with anything else, experiences vary... Requirements vary. Also try to think ourside the language, construct, context, and framework. Is it better for developing API's? If you're using Linux/Unix, the answer is probably a yes. If you're on a Windows server, the question is a bit trickier.
Finally,
Writing in the ASP.NET Web API will have 0% to do with WCF. Perhaps it is implemented as such under the covers, but the ASP.NET Web API is (from what I've seen and done with it) strictly an HTTP bound API, not TCP/Binary/Piped/etc... like WCF. If you're ask
Yes. It's called Grails. It uses spring. There are tons of plugins available for it and it make creating webapps a breeze. Read more about it here.
I'm looking to make a RESTful API on ASP.NET for a website. My problem is that I need it to be integrated into the website and not as a separate project.
I understand that WCF makes this really easy and its the ideal way to do it, but I don't think you can combine a WCF Service Project and a ASP.Net Website, Is this correct?
Is there a way we can do this using a webservice (asmx) file (since I know that asmx services use SOAP no?)
The reason I need this to be in the same project is that the customer will be able to purchase ssl for their domain (which the website is going to use) and I need to make the API secure as well, but the customer should not be asked to purchase two ssl or even a wildcard one.
Knowing this, is there a better easier way of doing this using WCF?
Take a look at the new MVC4 Beta, it's set to go live sometime between March and April this year and should be able to accommodate your requirement to build a RESTful web service alongside a web application. I haven't spent too much time with MVC4 to go into the details, but it's definitely worth a look. Links: Get MVC4; MVC4 and WebAPI blog.
Hope this helps!
You can use ASPNET MVC to build an API along with your website.
See How can I implement a site with ASP.NET MVC without using Visual Studio? for some details on building a basic MVC site.
ASPNET MVC services can respond in JSON or XML, or both.
There will be no special requirement for two SSL certs.
I have an ASP.NET MVC 3 application that exposes both WCF REST services. I'm using .NET 4. You'll have to pay attention to how you configure your routing. For example, my WCF services are prefixed with something like "api/v1/" while all other requests are handled by ASP.NET MVC 3.
I had a problem because IIS refused to serve some "localhost" requests (like when your MVC 3 controllers try to consume your WCF rest services). That was solved by adding an entry to my hosts file. Also be aware of this when implementing an OAuth 2.0 Resource Server or Authorization Server.
Using WCF for REST services works ok in .NET 4, but the JSON serialization sucks big time. There are issues with default dates and it is rather slow. You may want to look at using a different serializer. With WCF you sacrifice some flexibility for some features you get for free.
ASP.NET MVC 4 (and the WEBAPI) is still in BETA, so I'd avoid that for a project with a short term release date.
I'd actually use NancyFX. Setting up routes is super-easy, and it comes with built in XML and JSON serializers that act based on the data in the headers.
We have an ASP.Net C# application that requires some form of a web services implementation for integration with other applications. Currently we have been looking at servicestack and also using an ESB e.g. Mule.
I am trying to figure out the best way to integrate an ESB like Mule into our ASP.Net application.
Do we need to build a web service into our ASP.Net application so that an ESB can integrate with it?
If yes what would be a good approach for selecting a web service type (e.g. REST, WCF, SOAP, Servicestack) that will be compatible with an ASP.Net application and Mule?
Do we need to build a web service into our ASP.Net application so that
an ESB can integrate with it?
Usually it's the other way around. An integration middleware, like Mule, speaks tons of protocols just for the sake of being able to connect to existing systems without changing them.
If yes what would be a good approach for selecting a web service type
(e.g. REST, WCF, SOAP, Servicestack) that will be compatible with an
ASP.Net application and Mule?
If your application has really no pre-existing channel you could use to integrate with (not even a simple web form HTTP POST? really?) and you want to expose an API so an integration middleware can connect to it, pick the architecture/technology that maps to the API style you're creating (REST for a resource oriented API, SOAP for a RPC oriented API).
This sounds backwards. What are you required to integrate with, and what capabilities are you trying to provide?
A web service is decoupled from its implementation, you would choose to use a web service if you're trying to expose your system capabilities in an interoperable way so that it's accessible by a broad range of clients.
What you do within a web service is up to you, i.e. you could then for example connect with your ESB. Nothing is precludes you from doing that. ServiceStack also supports hosting from within an existing ASP.NET (or MVC application) see the Hello World example for different ways of configuring ServiceStack.
REST / RPC has to do with the design of your web services and ServiceStack supports both models. i.e. inherit from RestServiceBase if you want to provide different implementations when the service is invoked with different HTTP Verbs. Inherit ServiceBase if you want the same implementation to be used no matter how it was invoked. This article shows the difference between REST vs RPC/SOAP - and how you can support both in ServiceStack.
So if your exposing a single operation (or want to support SOAP) use ServiceBase, if your exposing a 'Resource' where you want to allow it to be managed using different HTTP Verbs use RestServiceBase.