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.
Related
I have 1 Site (MySite.com) / 1 Web Service (WebService.MySite.Com) and one Common Library (LibCommon)
The common Library Contains a Model e.g. UserModel = LibCommon.UserModel
The web service has a method 'Void CheckUser(LibCommon.UserModel model)'
However when I add the 'WebService' reference to 'MySite.com' the method changes so that it looks like 'Void CheckUser(WebService.MySite.Com.UserModel model)'
So I think fair enough I can just cast one object to the other as they are identical however .NET Says I cannot do this?
Is there a work around for this?
Cheers,
Note this is for WCF, and not ASMX web services:
You can't directly cast the original data class to the proxied class generated by the WCF service reference wizard. However, you can reuse the original data class in the client:
Add the library reference containing the transfer objects (i.e. LibCommon) as a reference to both the Service (WebService) and the Client (Mysite.com). When adding the service reference on the client, choose the advanced tab and then select Reuse types in referenced assemblies. This will then reuse the common data transfer classes, instead of duplicating the types with proxies.
Note however that by eliminating the proxied data class, you are introducing direct coupling between client and server - you should do this only if you have control over both client and server w.r.t. version control issues etc (e.g. able to deploy new versions of both client and server simultaneously)
As an aside, it is also possible to eliminate the shared service interface as well, by moving the server side Service contract interface into a separate, common assembly and then using a technique such as this or this.
I am considering implementing WCF Data services in one of my projects. After extensive research, I have some questions that have yet to be answered. If someone can please help me out?
When we are passing concrete data specific operations (albeit over HTTP using URI's), why is a WCF data service next to the UI layer in most of the documentations? Shouldn't it be a higher level of abstraction than interfacing between UI and the EDM?
Why is the passing of a URI needed to establish context? Wasn't the URI passed into the ADD SERVICE REFERENCE (or DATASVCUTIL) to generate client proxy classes? Why this redundancy whenever a context needs to be established?
What if my service URL changes? How to determine this service URL dynamically? For example, let's assume I have a WCF DATA SERVICE at http://localhost:8443/project1/WCFSERVICE1. How can i get this URL dynamically at runtime (because of the changing port under VS)????
I have seen some examples where DataServiceRequest and DataServiceResponse are used; sometimes they are not and the query is directly executed via CREATEQUERY or EXECUTE. What is the difference in one line??
How to access a remote service over corporate network proxy? I know we can pass defaultcredentials to the webrequest but how is that to be done with wcf data service client proxy classes?
P.S. For now, I have configured a static port in visual studio. However, how to get this port dynamically?
Appreciate your help.
Just saw this, I'm sure by now you've got answers to most of these questions, but here goes.
Your question 3 is the answer to your title question. Passing the URI in the constructor means you have greater runtime flexibility for the location of the data service. So in my case I've got the port and server name as application settings that can be modified at runtime without the need to modify the application.
Hope this helps.
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
Consider 3 modules/classes in an ASP.NET Webforms application.
I need a web service for each of them, where each web service contains only one function.
Should I group them into one web service class, or should I keep the one web service for each class?
If they are related and need to be exposed for consumtion by a single client you could create one webservice and call this an API. This means you and your client maintain/consume a single webservice.
If they are clearly unrelated, separate them.
Group them in one class (the base webservice class). If it's needed you can branch from here and instantiate more complicated classes, or even call external libraries (for example if you have a data layer to call)
In an effort to understand MVC 2 and attempt to get my company to adopt it as a viable platform for future development, I have been doing a lot of reading lately. Having worked with ASP.NET pretty exclusively for the past few years, I had some catching up to do.
Currently, I understand the repository pattern, models, controllers, data annotations, etc. But there is one thing that is keeping me from completely understanding enough to start work on a reference application.
The first is the Service Layer Pattern. I have read many blog posts and questions here on Stack Overflow, but I still don't completely understand the purpose of this pattern. I watched the entire video series at MVCCentral on the Golf Tracker Application and also looked at the demo code he posted and it looks to me like the service layer is just another wrapper around the repository pattern that doesn't perform any work at all.
I also read this post: http://www.asp.net/Learn/mvc/tutorial-38-cs.aspx and it seemed to somewhat answer my question, however, if you are using data annotations to perform your validation, this seems unnecessary.
I have looked for demonstrations, posts, etc. but I can't seem to find anything that simply explains the pattern and gives me compelling evidence to use it.
Can someone please provide me with a 2nd grade (ok, maybe 5th grade) reason to use this pattern, what I would lose if I don't, and what I gain if I do?
In a MVC pattern you have responsibilities separated between the 3 players: Model, View and Controller.
The Model is responsible for doing the business stuff, the View presents the results of the business (providing also input to the business from the user) while the Controller acts like the glue between the Model and the View, separating the inner workings of each from the other.
The Model is usually backed up by a database so you have some DAOs accessing that. Your business does some...well... business and stores or retrieves data in/from the database.
But who coordinates the DAOs? The Controller? No! The Model should.
Enter the Service layer. The Service layer will provide high service to the controller and will manage other (lower level) players (DAOs, other services etc) behind the scenes. It contains the business logic of your app.
What happens if you don't use it?
You will have to put the business logic somewhere and the victim is usually the controller.
If the controller is web centric it will have to receive its input and provide response as HTTP requests, responses. But what if I want to call my app (and get access to the business it provides) from a Windows application which communicates with RPC or some other thing? What then?
Well, you will have to rewrite the controller and make the logic client agnostic. But with the Service layer you already have that. Yyou don't need to rewrite things.
The service layer provides communication with DTOs which are not tied to a specific controller implementation. If the controller (no matter what type of controller) provides the appropriate data (no mater the source) your service layer will do its thing providing a service to the caller and hiding the caller from all responsibilities of the business logic involved.
I have to say I agree with dpb with the above, the wrapper i.e. Service Layer is reusable, mockable, I am currently in the process of including this layer inside my app... here are some of the issues/ requirements I am pondering over (very quickly :p ) that could be off help to youeself...
1. Multiple portals (e.g. Bloggers portal, client portal, internal portal) which will be needed to be accessed by many different users. They all must be separate ASP.NET MVC Applications (an important requirement)
2. Within the apps themselves some calls to the database will be similar, the methods and the way the data is handled from the Repository layer. Without doubt some controllers from each module/ portal will make exactly or an overloaded version of the same call, hence a possible need for a service layer (code to interfaces) which I will then compile in a separate class project.
3.If I create a separate class project for my service layer I may need to do the same for the Data Layer or combine it with the Service Layer and keep the model away from the Web project itself. At least this way as my project grows I can throw out the data access layer (i.e. LinqToSql -> NHibernate), or a team member can without working on any code in any other project. The downside could be they could blow everything up lol...