Direct link for the lazy https://github.com/dotnet/wcf
WCF is Open Source
141–149 of 149 posts
Re: WCF is Open Source
#142SOA is dead for good. No use reviving WCF now. WebApI is the way forward.
Re: WCF is Open Source
#143What is a good alternative to WCF if I want Binary+TCP. I used WCF in the past and didn't have trouble with it, but there is seething hatred for it in this thread. For the record, I eschewed XML configuration for code and instead of supporting a range of protocols/transports, I used binary over TCP.
Would really like to know the same. I do get the hatred, but is there an alternative to exposing your API via HTTP and TCP in a simple way?
Re: WCF is Open Source
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep! http://www.asp.net/aspnet/overview/owin-and-katana Katana/OWIN provides a pipeline for hosting .NET web[sites|services] without IIS. This is another direction .NET is heading, no more IIS shackling (if you so choose)
Using the OWIN HttpListener rather than relying on IIS has been a godsend for many of the applications that we develop. IIS simply has too many knobs that users can twiddle and break our applications. Running a webserver out of a Windows service, with everything sandboxed and tuned to the needs of our application is much simpler. Plus, no need to rely on Powershell scripts, or god forbid, the user, to get the correct…
Yep, agreed. If you are self-hosting as windows services make sure you check out http://topshelf-project.com/
Re: WCF is Open Source
#145I love C# and .NET, but WCF is a true source of frustration. It isn't horribly bad, but there is nothing good about it either. It's too complex, too messy, and too "Microsofty" for lack of a better word. Many layers of abstraction, hidden magic in XML files (which you can of course turn off, but then you need to know how to), and so on. Nevertheless, shares of coders blindly use WCF, "because Microsoft tells us to".…
>If you want to make a RESTful API with .NET
WCF is overengineered for this, but this doesn't necessary means that WCF sucks.
Right tool for the right job.
Re: WCF is Open Source
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enterprisey doesn't mean designed to work in an enterprise. It never has. It's a pejorative term, not a descriptive one. It means an over engineered solution to a simple problem that suffers heavily from YAGNI. It means catering to the 0.1% scenarios over the 99.9% scenarios. It means a complex generic solution where a simple one would have been better with custom code being used to handle the occasional complex scen…
> It means an over engineered solution to a simple problem This is exactly my point. SOA in practice is not a simple problem, and it's the reason WCF exists so of course it's going to be complex. The whole idea of SOA means that you're inherently stuck with the problem of communicating with different different systems that talk different languages, by trying to coerce them into communicating via a standard format, wh…
No, the reason WCF exists is to share data between programs. It wasn't just for SOA it was for everything.
Your over enthusiasm for WCF seems to stem from your own lack of understanding of the major uses of WCF, you're citing a minor use case of WCF as if it were the primary one.
Also the hints you're dropping of your work programming environment sounds like a beauracratic nightmare.
Re: WCF is Open Source
#147Re: WCF is Open Source
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought WCF was more hassle than it was worth. Then I got a massive performance boost from switching to the TCP transport with a quick configuration change ...and had fallback to HTTP after writing a few lines of code. Making the transport orthogonal to other concerns is a big win.
Rofl. Good luck with that. 99% of the people don't even know wtf's WSHttpBinding.
This wasn't for a public API. It's employee-use-only business stuff; both client and server are bespoke.
Re: WCF is Open Source
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It means an over engineered solution to a simple problem This is exactly my point. SOA in practice is not a simple problem, and it's the reason WCF exists so of course it's going to be complex. The whole idea of SOA means that you're inherently stuck with the problem of communicating with different different systems that talk different languages, by trying to coerce them into communicating via a standard format, wh…
No, the reason WCF exists is to share data between programs. It wasn't just for SOA it was for everything. Your over enthusiasm for WCF seems to stem from your own lack of understanding of the major uses of WCF, you're citing a minor use case of WCF as if it were the primary one. Also the hints you're dropping of your work programming environment sounds like a beauracratic nightmare.
Read the first sentence:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731082%28v=vs.110...