Chaps, I still think that WCF is overkill for me as I can't see anything in it I need. I sort of forgot about a simple Web API, but soon remembered that it's not really an "API", it's just a convention of URL usage that you have to document for people to consume. The spectacular advantage of ASMX is that you can point wsdl.exe at it and get a complete proxy class that defines a contract. We even noticed today that my colleague has a similar utility in his latest Borland C++ kit, which we haven't tried yet, but its help says it spits out C++ or Delphi code.
I ran through the Web API publishing tutorials and think it is the best for choice complete platform neutrality, when I specifically need it. I actually consume the Rackspace REST APIs myself in a large utility app and completely forgot about it. Greg K On 18 December 2013 11:00, Shane Nall <shane.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > WCF is a lot simpler to configure than it used to be especially now with > the new <protocolMapping> element to define the server side endpoints. > > Agreed ASMX is legacy but WCF still has a part to play in SOA… I think of > Web API is just that an API to expose your services. > > Consider the scenario where you have multiple web sites, a jQuery mobile > solution, native apps all taking to the same tenanted database. You want > them all transacting through the same services layer for a number of > reasons including the memory footprint. > > Sure you could use WebAPI for everything but I think it’s better to treat > it as an integration layer and use the structure of shared Data and Service > Contracts to define your data abstraction layer then look to net pipe or > tcp bindings to improve the performance. > > I used to hate WCF as well but I think it still has a place depending on > the architecture of your solution. > > Cheers, > Shane > > > > > > > On 18 Dec 2013, at 9:20 am, Katherine Moss <katherine.m...@gordon.edu> > wrote: > > Then where do ASMX and SVC services fit in these days? > > > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [ > mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>] *On > Behalf Of *Michael Ridland > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 17, 2013 5:55 PM > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* Re: ASMX vs SVC basicHtpBinding > > > > > > WebAPI with JSON? > > http://www.asp.net/web-api > > > > Or if you want to have some fun you could use Node.js? > > > > Or there's NancyFX? > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Greg Keogh <g...@mira.net> wrote: > > Folks, I recently had a write a few web services and I had the choice of > using SVC with basicHttpBinding or the traditional ASMX Web Service. The > services only need to behave like simple libraries, passing strings and > simple class types back and forth. I've said before I think WCF is > an overweight "beast" which is great if you need to change bindings or > delicately configure its many settings (and you can figure out how to do > it!), but I don't need any of that stuff so I decided to use ASMX because > it's so much easier to code. > > > > Does anyone know if my decision makes things easier or worse for non-.NET > consumers? It looks like native apps on Android or iPhone might have to > consume my services and I was wondering if my ASMX web services might > irritate them. What is the preferred way of publishing a web service these > days that makes things easy and "open" for various consumers? Maybe REST is > preferred?! > > > > Greg K > > > > >
