Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WCF is Open Source

dotnetfoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 149 posts

Re: WCF is Open Source

#41

Post by ilitirit »

scuba7183 wrote: post #31
strommen wrote: post #28

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)

Worth considering:

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj823172%28v=vs.110...

My personal opinion is if you want to use an MS technology, use Web API unless you have a compelling reason to use WCF.

Re: WCF is Open Source

#42

Post by [deleted] »

strommen wrote: post #38
jxf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Oh come on. WCF is pretty obscure. .NET is pretty unknown to many HN readers, and even within .NET WCF is not very widely used.

[deleted]

Re: WCF is Open Source

#43

Post by mythz »

strommen wrote: post #28

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.

WCF's REST is the ugliest implementation of HTTP/REST I've seen from any framework, whilst its RPC method signatures, SOAP format and code-gen client proxies provide one of the most fragile combination of technologies used in web services today: http://www.infoq.com/articles/interview-servicestack

Re: WCF is Open Source

#44

Post by anton_gogolev »

dragonwriter wrote: post #27
anton_gogolev wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This a good thing for those companies that have lots of WCF services. I very much doubt that. WCF is one of the most over-engineered frameworks I've encountered so far, and I've seen many. It's an epitome of enterprisiness, with every miniscule detail configurable via XML, with countless layers of abstractions, factories and providers, with very specific modalities, with all kinds of pluggable serializers, with met…

> Because WS-* . While WCF supports WS-* and is in large part organized around it, some of the complexity isn't "because WS- ", its "because WCF is a higher-level abstraction that supports, among other things, WS-* ". I mean, you can apply all that overengineered configuration to build REST services with WCF, too. You probably don't want to (unless you are already heavily invested in WCF), but you can .

>...its "because WCF is a higher-level abstraction that supports, among other things, WS-* "

And it fails spectacularly. I mean, _it works_, but it's a disaster to work with and write software against.

The entire abstraction is leaking profusely, all precisely "because WS-*". Who in their right mind will attempt to establish a family of standards for "transport-agnostic" communication, routing, serialization and whatnot when realistically 99% of the time HTTPS is all you ever need?

Re: WCF is Open Source

#45

Post by swalsh »

iandanforth wrote: post #17

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.

I might be alone here, but when I do code reviews I always correct guys when they use acronyms that are not "common knowledge". Things like ASN would be allowed (i can google that easily), but if you're creating something new, that's not a primary domain thing like FancyPowerControl, I don't want to see FPC all over the code.

It may be persnickety, but it just really throws me off when authors create a new acronym, and I have no idea what they're talking about.

Its all about the API for me. I don't want to see Device.FPC, when I have no idea FPC is a thing. I want to see Device.Power

Re: WCF is Open Source

#47

Post by bunderbunder »

strommen wrote: post #38
jxf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Oh come on. WCF is pretty obscure. .NET is pretty unknown to many HN readers, and even within .NET WCF is not very widely used.

Bits of every domain are obscure to someone. But it seems to me that the only domain for which use of acronyms in article titles ever seems to provoke this level of irritation is Microsoft's. Makes me suspect that this particular debate is really just a proxy for a different argument altogether.

Re: WCF is Open Source

#48

Post by ilitirit »

strommen wrote: post #38
jxf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Oh come on. WCF is pretty obscure. .NET is pretty unknown to many HN readers, and even within .NET WCF is not very widely used.

> WCF is pretty obscure

Is this really the case? I've been using it since it's inception (never used "Indigo" in production). At the time it was a godsend because our company was moving to a SOA (ahh... the dark ages) using Oracle Fusion Middleware, and judging by the job postings over the years I suspect many other non-Java/Oracle houses also adopted WCF.

I did not realize it was considered an obscure technology.

Re: WCF is Open Source

#49

Post by mrspeaker »

iandanforth wrote: post #17

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.

Except if the acronym is DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself).

Re: WCF is Open Source

#50

Post by WDCDev »

strommen wrote: post #38
jxf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Oh come on. WCF is pretty obscure. .NET is pretty unknown to many HN readers, and even within .NET WCF is not very widely used.

WCF has quite a bit of adoption in the .NET community. I am currently working on a major WCF project that uses TCP streaming and named pipes.

This is the third project I have worked on that uses WCF, and I have been working on the .NET platform since Beta.

Post reply on HN