31–40 of 149 posts
WCF is great if you want to make a single data service available as JSON via REST, XML via SOAP, a custom binary protocol via raw TCP, and who-knows-what else. In practice you're almost always better off just picking a single format for your endpoint, in which case there's no reason to use WCF.
Dear fellow nerds, please write out all acronyms the first time you use them (TFTYUT), our nerd circles may not overlap. After TFTYUT you can use the nice short version however you wish. Many thanks.
The abstraction is simply broken
It tried to be a common abstraction over http, tcp, message queue etc. Which is just not possible
There's too many specifics in each of them to have any sort of common interface (in all but the most simple examples)
WCF is great if you want to make a single data service available as JSON via REST, XML via SOAP, a custom binary protocol via raw TCP, and who-knows-what else. In practice you're almost always better off just picking a single format for your endpoint, in which case there's no reason to use WCF.
What are some other libraries and frameworks that should be used? (For C# web services)
WCF is great if you want to make a single data service available as JSON via REST, XML via SOAP, a custom binary protocol via raw TCP, and who-knows-what else. In practice you're almost always better off just picking a single format for your endpoint, in which case there's no reason to use WCF.
What are some other libraries and frameworks that should be used? (For C# web services)
Nancy http://nancyfx.org/
service stack https://servicestack.net/
Asp.net web api http://www.asp.net/web-api
The first time I had to consume WS- services in .NET, with deeply nested data types I spent a week trying to figure out WCF and the WS endpoint (which was written in Java) and gave up. I wrote a DSL to parse the messages and just stripped the message off the network stack before it even hit the application level where WCF would handle it. It gives me shivers just thinking about it.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa717047%28v=vs.110...
Dear fellow nerds, please write out all acronyms the first time you use them (TFTYUT), our nerd circles may not overlap. After TFTYUT you can use the nice short version however you wish. Many thanks.
Like any other writing, it's just about knowing your audience.
I mean, are you really going to write "HN (Hacker News)", "YC (Y Combinator)", "HTTP (Hyper-Text Transfer Protocol)", etc. every single time you use those in a comment here?
Dear fellow nerds, please write out all acronyms the first time you use them (TFTYUT), our nerd circles may not overlap. After TFTYUT you can use the nice short version however you wish. Many thanks.
> please write out all acronyms the first time you use them Like any other writing, it's just about knowing your audience. I mean, are you really going to write "HN (Hacker News)", "YC (Y Combinator)", "HTTP (Hyper-Text Transfer Protocol)", etc. every single time you use those in a comment here?
WCF made the mistake of trying to be all the things to all the people The abstraction is simply broken It tried to be a common abstraction over http, tcp, message queue etc. Which is just not possible There's too many specifics in each of them to have any sort of common interface (in all but the most simple examples)
The first time I had to consume WS- services in .NET, with deeply nested data types I spent a week trying to figure out WCF and the WS endpoint (which was written in Java) and gave up. I wrote a DSL to parse the messages and just stripped the message off the network stack before it even hit the application level where WCF would handle it. It gives me shivers just thinking about it.
Why did you go all the way down to that level? If you could not generate the .NET types from the WSDL (WCF provides tools to do this), you could modify the message using WCF itself. No reason to use a DSL. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa717047%28v=vs.110...
And no I could not get .NET to generate types from the WSDL and I knew about the tools provided for that. They didn't work and I wasted a lot of time on them because everything I read said they should work.
I used a DSL because that's what I knew and because I had already wasted too much time.
I've since learned to avoid situations like this but that's a whole 'nother comment.