I'm currently looking at developing a WCF Service for the first time, but am a bit confused.
Say I've got a windows application that is going to call into this web service, that service is then going to call our data methods to retrieve and save the data.
Now, say for example we have 2 classes in our solution, Customer and Product. Do all methods within the service have to go into the same class file (e.g. MyService.svc), or can they be split into several classes replicating the main data layer, i.e. Customer.cs and Product.cs. If they can be split, how do these get called from within the windows forms application? Would each class be a different end point?
At the moment I can access the methods within the main class (e.g. MyService.svc), but I can't see any of the methods in the other classes, even though I have attributed them with "ServiceContract" and "OperationContract".
I have a feeling I'm missing something simple somewhere, just not sure what.
I would be grateful if some nice person could point me in the direction of a tutorial on doing this, as every tutorial I've found only includes the single class :)
Thanks in advance.
What you need to define is Data Contracts for your service
Theoretically, these data contracts could be your business entities (since 3.5 SP1 and its WCF poco support)
It's better though to create separate entities for your service and then to create conversion classes that can convert your business entities into service entities and the other way around
Actually, after loads of searching, I finally seemed to find what I was looking for just after posting my question (typical).
I've found the following page - http://www.scribd.com/doc/13136057/ChapterImplementing-a-WCF-Service-in-the-Real-World
Although I've not gone through it yet, it does look like it will cover what I'm after.
Apologies for wasting anyones time :) Hopefully this will be useful to someone else looking for the same thing.
It sounds like you only need one service. However, if you need to create multiple services. Consider this as an example.
[ServiceContract(Name = "Utility", Namespace = Constants.COMMON_SERVICE_NAMESPACE)]
public interface IService
[ServiceContract(Name="Documents", Namespace = Constants.DOCUMENTS_SERVICE_NAMESPACE)]
public interface IDocumentService
[ServiceContract(Name = "Lists", Namespace = Constants.LISTS_SERVICE_NAMESPACE)]
public interface IListService
Remember that you can create multiple data contracts inside a single service, and it is the best solution for a method that will require a reference to Customer(s) and Product(s).
It might help to take a look at MSDN's data contract example here.
Related
My question might seem strange for pros but please take to account that I am coming from ruby on rails world =)
So, I am learning ASP.NET Core. And I like what I am seeing in it compared to rails. But there is always that but... Let me describe the theoretical problem.
Let's say I have a Product model. And there are over 9000 records in the database. It is obvious that I have to paginate them. I've read this article, but it seems to me that something is wrong here since the controller shouldn't use context directly. It has to use some repository (but that example might be provided in such a way only for simplicity).
So my question is: who should be responsible for pagination? Should it be the controller which will receive some queryable object from the repository and take only those records it needs? Or should it be my own business service which does the same? Or should the repository has a method like public IEnumerable<Product> ListProducts(int offset, int page)?
One Domain-Driven-Design solution to this problem is to use a Specification. The Specification design pattern describes a query in an object. So you might create a PagedProduct specification which would take in any necessary parameters (pageSize, pageNumber, filter). Then one of your repository methods (usually a List() overload) would accept an ISpecification and would be able to produce the expected result given the specification. There are several benefits to this approach. The specification has a name (as opposed to just a bunch of LINQ) that you can reason about and discuss. It can be unit tested in isolation to ensure correctness. And it can easily be reused if you need the same behavior (say on an MVC View action and a Web API action).
I cover the Specification pattern in the Pluralsight Design Patterns Library.
For first, I would like to remind you that all such examples you linked are overly simplified, so it shouldn't drive you to believe that that is the correct way. Simple things, with fewer abstraction layers are easier to oversee and understand (at least in the case of simple examples for beginners when the reader may not know where to look for what) and that's why they are presented like that.
Regarding the question: I would say none of the above. If I had to decide between them then I would say the service and/or the repository, but that depends on how you define your storage layer, etc.
"None of the above", then what? My preference is to implement an intermediary layer between the service layer and the Web UI layer. The service layer exposes manipulation functionality but for read operations, exposes the whole collection as an IQueryable, and not as an IEnumerable, so that you can utilize LINQ-to-whatever-storage.
Why am I doing this, many may ask. Because almost all the time you will use specialized viewmodels. To display the list of products on an admin page, for example, you would need to display values of columns in the products table, but you are very likely to need to display its category as well. Very rarely is it the case that you need data only from one table and by exposing the items as an IQueryable<T> you get the benefit of being able to do Selects like this:
public IEnumerable<ProductAdminTableViewModel> GetProducts(int page, int pageSize)
{
backingQueryable.Select(prod => new ProductAdminTableViewModel
{
Id = prod.Id,
Category = prod.Category.Name, // your provider will likely resolve this to a Join
Name = prod.Name
}).Skip((page - 1) * pageSize).Take(pageSize).ToList();
}
As commented, by using the backing store as an IQueryable you will be able to do projections before your query hits the DB and thus you can avoid any nasty Select N+1s.
The reason that this sits in an intermediary layer is simply you do not want to add references to your web project neither in your repo nor in your service layer (project) but because of this you cannot implement the viewmodel-specific queries in your service layer simply because the viewmodels cannot be resolved there. This implies that the viewmodels reside in this same project as well, and to this end, the MVC project only contains views, controllers and the ASP.NET MVC-related guttings of your app. I usually call this intermediate layer as 'SolutionName.Web.Core' and it references the service layer to be able to access the IQueryable<T>-returning method.
In one of my views, I have a ViewModel which I populate from two tables, and then bind a List<ViewModel> to an editable GridView (ASP.NET Web Forms).
Now I need to send that edited List<ViewModel> back to the Services layer to update it in the database.
My question is - is it Okay to send the ViewModel back to Services, or should it stay in the Presentation? If not - should I better use a DTO? Many thanks.
Nice question !
After several (hard) debates with my teammates + my experience with MVC applications, I would not recommend to pass viewmodel to your service / domain layer.
ViewModel belongs to presentation, no matter what.
Because viewModel can be a combination of different models (e.g : 1 viewModel built from 10 models), your service layer should only work with your domain entities.
Otherwise, your service layer will end up to be unusable because constrained by your viewModels which are specifics for one view.
Nice tools like https://github.com/AutoMapper/AutoMapper were made to make the mapping job.
I would not do it. My rule is: supply service methods with everything they need to do their job and nothing more.
Why?
Because it reduces coupling. More often than not service methods are addressed from several sources (consumers). It is much easier for a consumer to fulfil a simple method signature than having to build a relatively complex object like a view model that it otherwise may have nothing to do with. It may even need a reference to an assembly it wouldn't need otherwise.
It greatly reduces maintenance effort. I think an average developer spends more than 50% of his time inspecting and tracking existing code (maybe even much more). Now everybody knows that looking for something that is not there takes disproportionally much time: you must have been everywhere to be sure. If a method receives arguments (or object with properties) that are not used directly or further down the call stack you or others will walk this long road time and again.
So if there is anything in the view model that does not play a part in the service method, don't use it to call the method.
Yes. I am pretty sure it is ok.
Try to use MS Entity Framework and it will help you allots.
(TLDR? Skip to the last couple of paragraphs for the questions...)
I have a classic ASP.Net site which was originally built around a data access layer consisting of static methods wrapping around ADO.Net. More recently, we've been introducing abstraction layers separated by interfaces which are glued together by StructureMap. However, even in this new, layered approach the repository layer still wraps around the old static ADO.Net classes (we weren't prepared to take on the task of implementing an ORM whilst simultaneously reorganising our application architecture).
This was working fine - until today. Whilst investigating some unexpected performance issues we've been having lately we noticed a couple of things about our data access classes:
Our SqlDataConnection instances aren't always being closed.
The connection objects are being stored in static variables.
Both of the above are bad practice and likely to be significantly contributing to our performance problems. The reason why the connections were being set in static variables was to share them across data access methods which is a good idea in theory - it's just a terrible implementation.
Our solution is to convert the static data access classes/methods into objects - with our core DataManager class being instantiated once at the beginning of a request and disposed once at the end (via a new PageBase class in the web layer - much of our code is not yet separated into layers). This means we have one instance of the data access class which gets used for the entire life cycle of the request and therefore only one connection.
The problem starts now when we get to the areas of the site using the newer layered architecture. With the older code, we could just pass a reference to the DataManager instance directly to the data access layer from the code behinds but this doesn't work when the layers are separated by interfaces and only StructureMap has knowledge of the different parts.
So, with all of the background out of the way here's the questions:
Is it possible for StructureMap to create instances by passing previously instantiated objects as dependencies - within the context of a single ASP.Net Page lifecycle?
If it is possible, how is this achieved? I haven't seen anything obvious in my searching and haven't had to do this in the past.
If it is not possible, what might be an alternative solution to the problem I've described above?
NOTE: This may or may not be relevant: we're calling ObjectFactory.BuildUp( this ) in a special base page for those pages which have been converted to use the new Architecture - ASP.Net doesn't provide a good access point.
Okay, this wasn't so hard in the end. Here's the code:
var instantiatedObject = new PropertyType();
ObjectFactory.Configure( x =>
{
x.For<IPropertyType>().Use( () => instantiatedObject );
x.SetAllProperties( p => p.OfType<IPropertyType>() );
}
);
We just put this in our PageBase class before the ObjectFactory.BuildUp( this ) line. It feels slightly dirty to be putting IoC configuration in the main code like this - but it's classic ASP.Net and there aren't many alternatives. I guess we could have provided some abstraction.
I have been reading about entity framework over the past couple of days and have managed to get a fair idea of using it but I still have a couple of questions some of which might seem a bit too basic. For perspective I am using entity framework 4.0 in an asp.net web application.If you can answer any of the questions please go ahead.
What advantage do I get by using POCO templates. I understand that if I wish to get persistence ignorance and keep my Entities clear of any information related to storage POCO entities are the way to go. Also I could switch from Entity framework to say NHibernate with relative ease when using POCO entities? Apart from loose coupling is there any significant reason for me to go towards POCO entities. Also if I do use POCO do I end up losing anything. I still get change tracking and lazy loading with the help of proxies?
Is it normal practice to use the Entities of the EF model as Data transfer Objects or Business Objects. i.e for example I have a separate class library for my entity model.Supposing I am using MVP , where I want a list of Employee's in a company. The presenter would request my business logic functions which would query the entity model for the list of Employee's and return the list of entities to the presenter. In this case my presenter would need to have a reference to the EF model. Is this the correct way? In the case of my asp.net web applciation it shouldnt be a problem but if I am using web services how does this work? Is this the reason to go towards POCO entities?
Supposing The Employee entity has a navigation property to a company table. If I use and wrap the data context in an 'using' block , and try to access the navigation property in the BL I am assuming I would get an exception. Would I also get an exception if I turned off lazyloading and used the 'include' linq query to get the entity? On a previous post someone recommended I use an context per request implying that the context remains active even when I am in the BL. I am assuming I would still need to detach the object and attach it to the context on my next request if I wish to persist any changes I make? or Instead should I just query for the object again with the new context and update it?
This question has more to do with organizing files/best practices and is a followup to a question i posted earlier. When I am using separate files based on entities to organize my data access layer, what is the best practice to organize my queries involving joins between multiple tables. I am still a bit hazy on organization. Have tried searching online but havent had much help.
Terrific question. My first recommendation is to think in patterns. With that said...
You pretty much nailed the advantages of using POCO. There are some distinct advantages to decoupling your business objects (POCO entities) from your data access layer. But the primary reason is like you said the ability to change or modify layers below. However using POCO you are essentially following the Code First (CF) approach. Personally, I consider it Code In Parallel depending upon your software development life cycle. You still have all the bells and whistles that data or model first approach have and some since you can extend the DbContext which is ObjectContext under the hood. I read an article, which I cannot seem to find, that CF is the future of Entity Framework. Lastly the nice thing with POCO is you are able to incorporate validation rules here or else where. You can also provide projections. Lets say you have Date of Birth but you want an Age property as well. That now becomes a no brainer as the Age property is ignored when mapping to the database.
Personally I create my own business objects (POCO) for large projects that tend to have a life of its own where change is a way of life. Another thought is scalability and maintainability. What if down the road I choose to split functionality between applications where, like you mentioned web services, functionality is now delivered from two disparate locations. If you have encapsulated your business objects and DAL within the same code block separation or scalability has now become a bit more complex. However, consider the project. It may be small with very little future change so no need to throw a grenade to kill a fly. At which time data first might be the way to go and let edmx file represent your objects. So don't marry yourself to one technology or one methodology/pattern. Do what makes sense for your time and business.
Using statements are perfectly fine. In fact I've recently been turned on to then wrapping that within a TransactionScope. If an error occurs rollbacks are inherent. Next, something to consider is the UnitOfWork. UnitOfWork pattern encapsulates a snapshot of what needs to be performed where the Data Context is the boundaries from which you work within. For each UnitOfWork you have a subject for which work is to be performed on. For example an Employee. So if you are to save Employee information to keep it simple you would make a call to the BL service or repository (which ever). There you pass in the Employee Id, perform some work under that UnitOfWork where it is either instantiated in the constructor or using Dependency Injections (DI or IoC). Easy starter is StructureMap. There the service makes the necessary calls to your UnitOfWork (DbContext) then returns control back upstream (e.g. UI).
The best way to learn here is to view others code. I'd start with some Microsoft examples. I'd start with Nerd Dinner (http://nerddinner.codeplex.com/) then build off that.
Additional Reading:
Use prototype pattern or not
http://weblogs.asp.net/manavi/archive/2011/05/17/associations-in-ef-4-1-code-first-part-6-many-valued-associations.aspx
[EDIT]
NightHawk457, I'm terribly sorry for not responding to your questions. Hopefully you figured it out but for future readers...
To help everyone visualize, imagine the below Architecture using the Domain Model and Repository as an example. Remember, there are many ways to skin a cat so take this and make it your own and don't forget my Grenade comment above.
Data Layer (Data Access): MyDbContext : DbContext, IUnitOfWork, where IUnitWork contracts the CRUD operations.
Data Repository (Data Access / Business Logic): MyDomainObjectRepository : IMyDomainObjectRepository, which receives IUnitOfWork by Factory class or Dependency Injection. Calls MyDomainObject validation on CRUD operations.
Domain Model (Business Logic): MyDomainObject using [Custom] Validation Attributes. Read this for pros/cons.
MVVM / MVC / WCF (Presentation / Service Layers): What ever additional layers you chose, you now have access to your data which is wrapped nicely in smaller modules who are self encapsulating of their function. The presentation layer (e.g. ViewModel, Controller, Code-Behind, etc.) can then receive an IMyObjectRepository by a Factory class or by Dependency Injection.
Tips:
Pass connection string into MyDbContext so you can reuse MyDbContext.
MySql does not play well with System.Transactions.TransactionScope, example. I don't recall exactly but it was something MySql did not support. This makes Testing a bit difficult since we have created this level of separation.
Create a Test project for each layer and at the minimum test general functionality/rules.
Each Domain Object should extend base object with ID field at minimum. Also do not implement Key attributes here. Domain Object should not describe architecture but rather the specific data as an entity. Even on Code First this can be achieved by the Fluent API.
Think generics when creating MyDbContext. ;) Read Diego's post.
In ASP.NET, the repositories are nice to use with ObjectDataSources.
As you can see, there is clear separation of roles where IUnitOfWork and IMyDomainObjectRepository are the Interfaces which expose the above layers functionality. And as an example, IUnitOfWork could be NHibernate, Entity Framework, LinqToSql or ADO.NET where a change to the factory class or dependency injection registration is all that has to change. FYI, I've heard the Repository called the Service Layer as well. Personally I like the first name to not be confused with Web Services. The next big take away from this structure is realizing the scope for you Database Context (IUnitOfWork). A simple example would be a ASP.NET page where for each page there is one and only one IUnitOfWork for either each repository or for that scope of work. Same holds true for ViewModels, Controllers, etc. So let's say you need to utilize two repositories, EmployeeRepository and HRRepository. You then could share the IUnitOfWork between both or not. To cross page, ViewModel or Controller boundaries, we use the ID for entities where they are then pulled from the DB and work is performed. You could alternatively pass a DTO across boundaries and attach to the context but then you begin losing separation of layers.
To continue, POCO classes do not have to be auto generated. In fact you can create your Entity Classes from scratch and perform the mapping in your extended DbContext class inside the OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder mb) method. Start here, then here and note the Additional Resources, google Fluent API and read this post by Diego.
As for validation, this is an interesting point because it would be GREAT if all Business Rules could be validated in one location. Well, as we all know that doesn't work real well. So here is my recommendation, keep all data level validation (i.e. required, range, format, etc.) with data annotation as much as possible in the domain object and leave process validation in the Repository with clear roles of the Repository (i.e. if (isEmployee) do this, else that). I say clear, such that you do not want to add an Employee in two different Repositories where validation has to be duplicated. To call the validation, start here. Capture the ValidationResults and send upstream with a MyRepositoryValidationException which contains a collection of validations errors (e.g. Employee is required) which can be presented to the presentation layer. With all that said, don't forget to perform validation at the presentation layer. You don't want post backs to make sure an Employee has a valid Email, for example.
Just remember to balance time and effort with complexity. For something simple, use Data First or Model First with your EDMX file. Then lay a repository on top of that which also contains all the validation rules.
i am using EF4 and StructureMap in an asp.net web application. I am using the repository/unit of work patterns as detailed in this post. In the code, there is a line that delegates the setup of an ObjectContext in global.asax.
EntityUnitOfWorkFactory.SetObjectContext(() => new MyObjectContext());
On the web page code-behind, you can create a generic repository interface like so ...
IRepository<MyPocoObject> ds = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IRepository<MyPocoObject>>();
My question is what is a good approach to refactoring this code so that I can use more than one ObjectContext and differentiate between them in the code-behind? Basically i have two databases/entity models in my application and need to query them both on the same page.
The Unit of Work is used to manage persistence across multiple repositories, not multiple object contexts.
You're not going to be able to persist changes across multiple contexts using a unit of work, as the UoW is simply implemented as a wrapper for a ObjectContext. Therefore, you'll need two unit of works.
Overall, things are going to get messy. You're going to have two OCs newed up and disposed each HTTP request, not to mention transaction management is going to be a nightmare.
Must you have two ObjectContexts? What is the reasoning for this? If it's for scalability, don't bother; it's going to be too painful for other things like your repository, unit of work and http scope management.
It's hard to provide good advice without seeing how you have your repositories set up.
Try creating wrapper classes for each object context, each implementing IUnitOfWork and a secondary unique interface (IEfSqlContext1, etc which represents one of your models/contexts).
Then you can inject whichever context you want.
As I said though, try and avoid having two EDMX/Contexts. It's more trouble than it's worth.