Re: New Web API project

[Nathan Schultz]

There are advantages of using MVC for open-source software:
 - You don't have to deal with the web-forms 'generated' naming
conventions of rendered HTML which can make it hard to integrate with
JavaScript frameworks
 - You have greater control over the HTML, which means it's easier to
implement open-source HTML frameworks such as HTML5 Boiler Plate, or
Foundation 3.
 - You're not reliant on ASP's rendering of server controls, so it's
easier to write standards compliant HTML
 - There is better separation of concerns between the view code and
logic, which leads to better transparency - always helpful when
working in disparate teams like in the Open Source community.
 - Testability: Unlike Web-Forms that are difficult to automatically
test; MVC makes testing frameworks first-class citizens, and the boon
from this cannot be understated:
. You can regression test at the click of a button - almost
essential when others are poking around with your code.
. It can also be used as a 'contract' when working with other
developers - you know what is implemented and working, and what is
not.
. I find Testable code is also better designed code: you think
about separation of concerns and dependencies much more
. There's nothing like getting to 'code freeze' and finding you
have to do a re-design due to uncovering a fundamental flaw. With a
test suite to back you up, re-factoring your design is far less scary.



On 1 February 2013 13:47, Heinrich Breedt  wrote:
> I think you have the wrong idea about MVC.
> Razor Views specifically: It all gets executed server side. You certainly
> dont have to use it. These days I do a lot of knockout pages with hardly any
> razor in them, sometimes not at all.
> It can look a lot like old asp i guess, and with all things it can lead to
> spaghetti code. But I much prefer to be close to the metal with my html.
> Much better than serverside controls and writing html inside page response.
> And if i never have to deal with the page lifecycle it will be too soon.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Katherine Moss 
> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for the clarification, guys.  My thing, since I’m planning to
>> become an open source developer, still, I think that even if I am developing
>> for open source, if I am happy, then I’ll keep one project in one technology
>> if it is working for me, and then I’ll offer a port of it in the other
>> platform or something like that so that people can choose which project they
>> feel more comfortable using.  Or I’ll just choose whichever one works.  I
>> feel that there is no reason to change a project that is working just for
>> the heck of it, but that’s me.  But, the good news is that it doesn’t look
>> like YAF will be moving since there is now a rival forum written in ASP.net
>> MVC right now.  So it would be stupid for them to do that.  And considering
>> they are commercial as well.  And speaking of ASP.net MVC though, I have
>> noticed that not many people use the standard ASPX view, do they?  I mean,
>> what’s so special about razor if razor is sort of backtracking to the ASP
>> days?  I mean, C# within HTML tags?  Come on, people.  Go back to VBScript
>> if you’re going to do that.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
>> On Behalf Of Heinrich B
>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:25 PM
>>
>>
>> To: ozDotNet
>> Subject: Re: New Web API project
>>
>>
>>
>> this might help:
>> http://www.west-wind.com/weblog/posts/2012/Aug/07/Where-does-ASPNET-Web-API-Fit
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Katherine Moss
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Yes, WebAPI is wrapped inside of MVC4.  And there’s another thing that
>> just makes me mad; when people want to rewrite their application for the
>> heck of it just so that they can be deployed under the latest fad.  The
>> folks from Yet Another Forum are now saying that their project could be
>> moved and rewritten as ASP.net MVC too, and for what?  To look cool?
>> Apparently, and what’s wrong with a project that is written in Web Forms and
>> doing fine?  I’m sorry, but I don’t get it.  And once that changes, if it
>> does, other folks who use YAF will be screwed including those at Sueetie,
>> who make a great product all based on Web Forms.  Though web forms and MVC
>> can work together, though it’s not as simple as one would think.  If you
>> want MVC, then use Web Forms MVP.  And who said WCF is pointless middleware?
>> Isn’t it a good way to create web services?  And if not for WCF, what’s
>> next?  Back to ASMX from 2006?  Come on!  Anyway, guys, I’m sorry for the
>> rant, but I had to get it out somewhere, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
>> On Behalf Of Greg Keogh
>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:50 PM
>> To: ozDotNet
>> Subject: Re: New Web API project
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, glad to know I'm not alone, that link looks sensible and will save
>> a lot of suffering -- Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>

RE: Web api

[Mark Thompson]

You might like to try something like RestSharp ( http://restsharp.org/ ) -
it has some very nice helpers for adding request parameters and additional
headers. I haven't used it extensively, but for the times I have used it, it
made the whole process pretty painless.

 

Regards,

Mark.

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
On Behalf Of Stephen Price
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013 4:38 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Web api

 

Hey all,

 

While we are on the subject of MVC, I was looking about for an example or
walkthrough of how you might call a Rest Web API from an MVC app. 

 

Not found much so far. I found a console C# app that uses the Asp.Net Web
API Client libraries to call one. I've also found some examples of how to
write the Web API's using MVC. 

 

So am scratching my head.. what httpX namespace is the right one to use?
HttpClient? something else? 

 

cheers,

Stephen

Web api

[Stephen Price]

Hey all,

While we are on the subject of MVC, I was looking about for an example or
walkthrough of how you might call a Rest Web API from an MVC app.

Not found much so far. I found a console C# app that uses the Asp.Net Web
API Client libraries to call one. I've also found some examples of how to
write the Web API's using MVC.

So am scratching my head.. what httpX namespace is the right one to use?
HttpClient? something else?

cheers,
Stephen

Re: New Web API project

[Heinrich Breedt]

I think you have the wrong idea about MVC.
Razor Views specifically: It all gets executed server side. You certainly
dont have to use it. These days I do a lot of knockout pages with hardly
any razor in them, sometimes not at all.
It can look a lot like old asp i guess, and with all things it can lead to
spaghetti code. But I much prefer to be close to the metal with my html.
Much better than serverside controls and writing html inside page response.
And if i never have to deal with the page lifecycle it will be too soon.


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Katherine Moss wrote:

>  Thank you for the clarification, guys.  My thing, since I’m planning to
> become an open source developer, still, I think that even if I am
> developing for open source, if I am happy, then I’ll keep one project in
> one technology if it is working for me, and then I’ll offer a port of it in
> the other platform or something like that so that people can choose which
> project they feel more comfortable using.  Or I’ll just choose whichever
> one works.  I feel that there is no reason to change a project that is
> working just for the heck of it, but that’s me.  But, the good news is that
> it doesn’t look like YAF will be moving since there is now a rival forum
> written in ASP.net MVC right now.  So it would be stupid for them to do
> that.  And considering they are commercial as well.  And speaking of
> ASP.net MVC though, I have noticed that not many people use the standard
> ASPX view, do they?  I mean, what’s so special about razor if razor is sort
> of backtracking to the ASP days?  I mean, C# within HTML tags?  Come on,
> people.  Go back to VBScript if you’re going to do that.  
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:
> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Heinrich B
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:25 PM
>
> *To:* ozDotNet
> *Subject:* Re: New Web API project
>
> ** **
>
> this might help:
> http://www.west-wind.com/weblog/posts/2012/Aug/07/Where-does-ASPNET-Web-API-Fit
>  
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Katherine Moss 
> wrote:
>
> Yes, WebAPI is wrapped inside of MVC4.  And there’s another thing that
> just makes me mad; when people want to rewrite their application for the
> heck of it just so that they can be deployed under the latest fad.  The
> folks from Yet Another Forum are now saying that their project could be
> moved and rewritten as ASP.net MVC too, and for what?  To look cool?
> Apparently, and what’s wrong with a project that is written in Web Forms
> and doing fine?  I’m sorry, but I don’t get it.  And once that changes, if
> it does, other folks who use YAF will be screwed including those at
> Sueetie, who make a great product all based on Web Forms.  Though web forms
> and MVC can work together, though it’s not as simple as one would think.
> If you want MVC, then use Web Forms MVP.  And who said WCF is pointless
> middleware?  Isn’t it a good way to create web services?  And if not for
> WCF, what’s next?  Back to ASMX from 2006?  Come on!  Anyway, guys, I’m
> sorry for the rant, but I had to get it out somewhere, right?  
>
>  
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:
> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Keogh
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:50 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
> *Subject:* Re: New Web API project
>
>  
>
> Thanks, glad to know I'm not alone, that link looks sensible and will save
> a lot of suffering -- Greg 
>
>
>
> 
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Heinrich Breedt
>
> “Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking.”
> - William B. Sprague 
>



-- 
Heinrich Breedt

“Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking.”
- William B. Sprague

RE: New Web API project

[Katherine Moss]

Thank you for the clarification, guys.  My thing, since I'm planning to become 
an open source developer, still, I think that even if I am developing for open 
source, if I am happy, then I'll keep one project in one technology if it is 
working for me, and then I'll offer a port of it in the other platform or 
something like that so that people can choose which project they feel more 
comfortable using.  Or I'll just choose whichever one works.  I feel that there 
is no reason to change a project that is working just for the heck of it, but 
that's me.  But, the good news is that it doesn't look like YAF will be moving 
since there is now a rival forum written in ASP.net MVC right now.  So it would 
be stupid for them to do that.  And considering they are commercial as well.  
And speaking of ASP.net MVC though, I have noticed that not many people use the 
standard ASPX view, do they?  I mean, what's so special about razor if razor is 
sort of backtracking to the ASP days?  I mean, C# within HTML tags?  Come on, 
people.  Go back to VBScript if you're going to do that.

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Heinrich B
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:25 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: New Web API project

this might help: 
http://www.west-wind.com/weblog/posts/2012/Aug/07/Where-does-ASPNET-Web-API-Fit

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Katherine Moss 
mailto:katherine.m...@gordon.edu>> wrote:
Yes, WebAPI is wrapped inside of MVC4.  And there's another thing that just 
makes me mad; when people want to rewrite their application for the heck of it 
just so that they can be deployed under the latest fad.  The folks from Yet 
Another Forum are now saying that their project could be moved and rewritten as 
ASP.net MVC too, and for what?  To look cool?  Apparently, and what's wrong 
with a project that is written in Web Forms and doing fine?  I'm sorry, but I 
don't get it.  And once that changes, if it does, other folks who use YAF will 
be screwed including those at Sueetie, who make a great product all based on 
Web Forms.  Though web forms and MVC can work together, though it's not as 
simple as one would think.  If you want MVC, then use Web Forms MVP.  And who 
said WCF is pointless middleware?  Isn't it a good way to create web services?  
And if not for WCF, what's next?  Back to ASMX from 2006?  Come on!  Anyway, 
guys, I'm sorry for the rant, but I had to get it out somewhere, right?

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Greg Keogh
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:50 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: New Web API project

Thanks, glad to know I'm not alone, that link looks sensible and will save a 
lot of suffering -- Greg



--
Heinrich Breedt

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking." - 
William B. Sprague

Re: New Web API project

[Heinrich Breedt]

this might help:
http://www.west-wind.com/weblog/posts/2012/Aug/07/Where-does-ASPNET-Web-API-Fit



On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Katherine Moss
wrote:

>  Yes, WebAPI is wrapped inside of MVC4.  And there’s another thing that
> just makes me mad; when people want to rewrite their application for the
> heck of it just so that they can be deployed under the latest fad.  The
> folks from Yet Another Forum are now saying that their project could be
> moved and rewritten as ASP.net MVC too, and for what?  To look cool?
> Apparently, and what’s wrong with a project that is written in Web Forms
> and doing fine?  I’m sorry, but I don’t get it.  And once that changes, if
> it does, other folks who use YAF will be screwed including those at
> Sueetie, who make a great product all based on Web Forms.  Though web forms
> and MVC can work together, though it’s not as simple as one would think.
> If you want MVC, then use Web Forms MVP.  And who said WCF is pointless
> middleware?  Isn’t it a good way to create web services?  And if not for
> WCF, what’s next?  Back to ASMX from 2006?  Come on!  Anyway, guys, I’m
> sorry for the rant, but I had to get it out somewhere, right?  
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:
> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Keogh
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:50 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
> *Subject:* Re: New Web API project
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks, glad to know I'm not alone, that link looks sensible and will save
> a lot of suffering -- Greg 
>



-- 
Heinrich Breedt

“Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking.”
- William B. Sprague

Re: New Web API project

[Nathan Schultz]

Exactly... I know for my own hobby projects I like to trial new
technologies, so I can get a feel for them, and learn the in's and
out's of them.
And more than once I have rewritten one in a new technology for no
other purpose than to familiarize myself with it.

I do admit that I quite like the MVC platform, and I find it supports
TDD much better. And I naturally gravitate to Web API over WCF (which
I feel is overly complicated for normal web-services).

When it comes to commercial projects, the opposite is true; I try to
keep it stable and conservative, and I'd select WCF over Web API due
to the difference in maturity.



On 1 February 2013 10:43, Craig van Nieuwkerk  wrote:
> I think YAF is essentially a hobby for the guys who are developing it, so
> the chances of them changing to different (cooler) technology is much higher
> than products that have commercial realities to deal with. Buyer beware I
> guess.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Katherine Moss 
> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, WebAPI is wrapped inside of MVC4.  And there’s another thing that
>> just makes me mad; when people want to rewrite their application for the
>> heck of it just so that they can be deployed under the latest fad.  The
>> folks from Yet Another Forum are now saying that their project could be
>> moved and rewritten as ASP.net MVC too, and for what?  To look cool?
>> Apparently, and what’s wrong with a project that is written in Web Forms and
>> doing fine?  I’m sorry, but I don’t get it.  And once that changes, if it
>> does, other folks who use YAF will be screwed including those at Sueetie,
>> who make a great product all based on Web Forms.  Though web forms and MVC
>> can work together, though it’s not as simple as one would think.  If you
>> want MVC, then use Web Forms MVP.  And who said WCF is pointless middleware?
>> Isn’t it a good way to create web services?  And if not for WCF, what’s
>> next?  Back to ASMX from 2006?  Come on!  Anyway, guys, I’m sorry for the
>> rant, but I had to get it out somewhere, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
>> On Behalf Of Greg Keogh
>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:50 PM
>> To: ozDotNet
>> Subject: Re: New Web API project
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, glad to know I'm not alone, that link looks sensible and will save
>> a lot of suffering -- Greg
>
>

Re: New Web API project

[Craig van Nieuwkerk]

I think YAF is essentially a hobby for the guys who are developing it, so
the chances of them changing to different (cooler) technology is much
higher than products that have commercial realities to deal with. Buyer
beware I guess.


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Katherine Moss wrote:

>  Yes, WebAPI is wrapped inside of MVC4.  And there’s another thing that
> just makes me mad; when people want to rewrite their application for the
> heck of it just so that they can be deployed under the latest fad.  The
> folks from Yet Another Forum are now saying that their project could be
> moved and rewritten as ASP.net MVC too, and for what?  To look cool?
> Apparently, and what’s wrong with a project that is written in Web Forms
> and doing fine?  I’m sorry, but I don’t get it.  And once that changes, if
> it does, other folks who use YAF will be screwed including those at
> Sueetie, who make a great product all based on Web Forms.  Though web forms
> and MVC can work together, though it’s not as simple as one would think.
> If you want MVC, then use Web Forms MVP.  And who said WCF is pointless
> middleware?  Isn’t it a good way to create web services?  And if not for
> WCF, what’s next?  Back to ASMX from 2006?  Come on!  Anyway, guys, I’m
> sorry for the rant, but I had to get it out somewhere, right?  
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:
> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Keogh
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:50 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
> *Subject:* Re: New Web API project
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks, glad to know I'm not alone, that link looks sensible and will save
> a lot of suffering -- Greg 
>

RE: New Web API project

[Katherine Moss]

Yes, WebAPI is wrapped inside of MVC4.  And there's another thing that just 
makes me mad; when people want to rewrite their application for the heck of it 
just so that they can be deployed under the latest fad.  The folks from Yet 
Another Forum are now saying that their project could be moved and rewritten as 
ASP.net MVC too, and for what?  To look cool?  Apparently, and what's wrong 
with a project that is written in Web Forms and doing fine?  I'm sorry, but I 
don't get it.  And once that changes, if it does, other folks who use YAF will 
be screwed including those at Sueetie, who make a great product all based on 
Web Forms.  Though web forms and MVC can work together, though it's not as 
simple as one would think.  If you want MVC, then use Web Forms MVP.  And who 
said WCF is pointless middleware?  Isn't it a good way to create web services?  
And if not for WCF, what's next?  Back to ASMX from 2006?  Come on!  Anyway, 
guys, I'm sorry for the rant, but I had to get it out somewhere, right?

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Greg Keogh
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:50 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: New Web API project

Thanks, glad to know I'm not alone, that link looks sensible and will save a 
lot of suffering -- Greg

Re: New Web API project

[Greg Keogh]

Thanks, glad to know I'm not alone, that link looks sensible and will save
a lot of suffering -- Greg

Re: WCF service best practises

[Grant Maw]

I'd be interested in hearing any experiences of those using ServiceStack.
It seems like a great platform - anyone care to share their experiences
with it?

Cheers

Grant


On 1 February 2013 08:28, William Luu  wrote:

> Also have a look into servicestack.net
>
> http://www.servicestack.net/mythz_blog/?p=860
>
>
> On 1 February 2013 09:14, Iain Carlin  wrote:
>
>> Nicely said!
>>
>>
>> On 1 February 2013 08:40, David Connors  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Craig van Nieuwkerk 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 ASP.NET WebAPI seems to be the new hotness. I don't have much
 experience with WCF, but everyone I talk to says it is too heavy and
 complicated. WebAPI tries to simplify things.
>>>
>>>
>>> WCF is a bunch of bullshit. People who use it just do so for the sake of
>>> adopting some shiny new technology - it is just pointless middleware for
>>> the sake of it. I don't understand why it exists anyway - as if we are some
>>> day doing to need to re-platform off tcp any time soon.
>>>
>>> If I needed to do a lot of IPC stuff today I'd just use rest/json like
>>> everyone else on the Internet. If you want to do something screaming fast,
>>> use protobufs. If you want to do an intermittently connected app then use
>>> some sort of message queuing framework/system or roll your own. I don't
>>> know why a common API needs to sit on top of a bunch of unrelated use
>>> cases, doing none of them very well.
>>>
>>> $0.02.
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Connors
>>> da...@connors.com | M +61 417 189 363
>>> Download my v-card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
>>> Follow me on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/davidconnors
>>> Connect with me on LinkedIn: http://au.linkedin.com/in/davidjohnconnors
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: New Web API project

[Craig van Nieuwkerk]

I am not sure why the default project comes with so much junk, but it looks
fairly easy to create a minimal project.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12412163/minimum-files-needed-to-deploy-webapi-server-side



On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Greg Keogh  wrote:

> I thought I'd generate a fresh Web API project from the template to see
> what it looks like, and I eventually find it under ASP MVC 4. I do so and
> get 143 files in 20 folders. There are scripts, images, cshtml files, style
> sheets and lord knows what. What is all this sh*t just to make a http
> service?
>
> I expected to get a concise little project with some skeleton files but I
> get this gigantic schmozzle. Are you telling me that a Web API project is
> wrapped-up inside the circus of the ASP MVC framework?
>
> Am I expected to delete all the irrelevent files and strip it back to a
> simple service without a UI, or is there a simpler way of creating a Web
> API project from scratch?
>
> Greg
>
> P.S. Silverlight still works best with WCF. You could make http requests
> from Silverlight, but it's all typeless. I'm not sure if there is some
> trick to make them work together more pleasantly.
>

New Web API project

[Greg Keogh]

I thought I'd generate a fresh Web API project from the template to see
what it looks like, and I eventually find it under ASP MVC 4. I do so and
get 143 files in 20 folders. There are scripts, images, cshtml files, style
sheets and lord knows what. What is all this sh*t just to make a http
service?

I expected to get a concise little project with some skeleton files but I
get this gigantic schmozzle. Are you telling me that a Web API project is
wrapped-up inside the circus of the ASP MVC framework?

Am I expected to delete all the irrelevent files and strip it back to a
simple service without a UI, or is there a simpler way of creating a Web
API project from scratch?

Greg

P.S. Silverlight still works best with WCF. You could make http requests
from Silverlight, but it's all typeless. I'm not sure if there is some
trick to make them work together more pleasantly.

Re: WCF service best practises

[David Connors]

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Craig van Nieuwkerk wrote:

> ASP.NET WebAPI seems to be the new hotness. I don't have much experience
> with WCF, but everyone I talk to says it is too heavy and complicated.
> WebAPI tries to simplify things.


WCF is a bunch of bullshit. People who use it just do so for the sake of
adopting some shiny new technology - it is just pointless middleware for
the sake of it. I don't understand why it exists anyway - as if we are some
day doing to need to re-platform off tcp any time soon.

If I needed to do a lot of IPC stuff today I'd just use rest/json like
everyone else on the Internet. If you want to do something screaming fast,
use protobufs. If you want to do an intermittently connected app then use
some sort of message queuing framework/system or roll your own. I don't
know why a common API needs to sit on top of a bunch of unrelated use
cases, doing none of them very well.

$0.02.

-- 
David Connors
da...@connors.com | M +61 417 189 363
Download my v-card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
Follow me on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/davidconnors
Connect with me on LinkedIn: http://au.linkedin.com/in/davidjohnconnors

RE: WCF service best practises

[Ken Schaefer]

http://xkcd.com/927/

Cheers
Ken

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Greg Keogh
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013 8:53 AM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: WCF service best practises

They've been flogging WebAPI in recent MSDN magazines, but I got the impression 
that it's just REST more formalised with contracts.

Perhaps this makes sense from the hints I've been reading. WCF is heavy and 
complicated and over-engineered to be general purpose (which is fine and I've 
benefited from that). REST is consumable by everyone, but it's a typeless mess. 
Putting some structure over REST and giving it a name sounds like a typical 
progression.

Oh well, I'd better start converting my brand new code to yet another standard. 
You can't have too many standards I reckon.

Greg

Re: WCF service best practises

[Greg Keogh]

They've been flogging WebAPI in recent MSDN magazines, but I got the
impression that it's just REST more formalised with contracts.

Perhaps this makes sense from the hints I've been reading. WCF is heavy and
complicated and over-engineered to be general purpose (which is fine and
I've benefited from that). REST is consumable by everyone, but it's a
typeless mess. Putting some structure over REST and giving it a name sounds
like a typical progression.

Oh well, I'd better start converting my brand new code to yet another
standard. You can't have too many standards I reckon.

Greg

Re: WCF service best practises

[Andrew McGrath]

There is also SignalR which is being developed by a couple of Microsofties, 
is open source and has just gone 1.0. You can find it at 
http://signalr.net.


From: "Craig van Nieuwkerk" 
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:23 AM
To: "ozDotNet" 
Subject: Re: WCF service best practises

ASP.NET WebAPI seems to be the new hotness. I don't have much experience 
with WCF, but everyone I talk to says it is too heavy and complicated. 
WebAPI tries to simplify things.

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Greg Keogh  wrote:
 What about the death of WCF as everything else in the modern 
technological landscape seems to be dying?  Is WCF another one?
Everything that dies has to be replaced in some form or another. If WCF is 
dying, what's its replacement? If I want to publicly expose my .NET 
"service" over the wire, what else can I use? SOAP, Sockets, Remoting, 
REST, two tin cans and a string?I'm I missing some gossip about 
sweeping changes in this area? If anyone knows, please speak up. Greg  

Re: WCF service best practises

[Craig van Nieuwkerk]

ASP.NET WebAPI seems to be the new hotness. I don't have much experience
with WCF, but everyone I talk to says it is too heavy and complicated.
WebAPI tries to simplify things.



On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Greg Keogh  wrote:

>  What about the death of WCF as everything else in the modern
>> technological landscape seems to be dying?  Is WCF another one?
>>
>
> Everything that dies has to be replaced in some form or another. If WCF is
> dying, what's its replacement?
>
> If I want to publicly expose my .NET "service" over the wire, what else
> can I use? SOAP, Sockets, Remoting, REST, two tin cans and a string?
>
> I'm I missing some gossip about sweeping changes in this area? If anyone
> knows, please speak up.
>
> Greg
>

Re: WCF service best practises

[Greg Keogh]

>
> What about the death of WCF as everything else in the modern technological
> landscape seems to be dying?  Is WCF another one?
>

Everything that dies has to be replaced in some form or another. If WCF is
dying, what's its replacement?

If I want to publicly expose my .NET "service" over the wire, what else can
I use? SOAP, Sockets, Remoting, REST, two tin cans and a string?

I'm I missing some gossip about sweeping changes in this area? If anyone
knows, please speak up.

Greg

RE: WCF service best practises

[Katherine Moss]

What about the death of WCF as everything else in the modern technological 
landscape seems to be dying?  Is WCF another one?  Sorry to butt in, but I 
figure why waste your time?  Or are you wasting it?  Is WCF still common and 
worth learning?

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Greg Keogh
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:08 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: WCF service best practises

Folks, I have created the stub of a WCF service that I've sanity checked is 
working okay when hosted in IIS, Azure, a Windows Service and even the command 
promt. It will be consumed by desktop apps and Silverlight. The initial code 
came out of the VS2012 new project template and I just started adding methods. 
It mostly moves plain POCO and DTO classes back-and-forth to manipulate a 
database.

Before I go any further, I just wanted to check here that I'm not missing any 
recent advances in techniques for writing WCF services that will "future proof" 
it, follow best practises and make life easier for myself. So I'm just fishing 
for general comments from anyone who was written some "serious" services.

Web searches produce these links, but I haven't had time to digest them yet:

http://bloggingabout.net/blogs/gerben/archive/2010/02/01/wcf-best-practices.aspx
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/317232/How-to-Build-Flexible-and-Reusable-WCF-Services
http://www.devproconnections.com/article/windows-communication-foundation-wcf2/Implementing-SOA-Patterns-with-WCF-and-NET-4-0-125163
(and many more)

Greg