We have a monolithic system that we are currently breaking into microservices using gRPC. Currently, we are using enyim caching in C# client in our monolithic code.
While creating our first gRPC service, we are confused that where should caching layer be:
Should it be moved to gRPC service code for this service? This way each service will have its caching code. This would lead to lots of duplicate caching code.
Should we create dll for caching related code and use it in new gRPC microservice? We would still need to place duplcate configurations across each gRPC service.
Handle caching from monolithic code only and call gRPC service only in case for cache miss?
Suggestions?
I was just browsing through when I checked this:
Caching at API Gateway makes lot of sense as it would save call to a service and caching code would not be duplicated at each service but would remain centralized with API Gateway itself.
I'm looking at converting an existing web service into a Web API. I've only worked with a WS a little bit and it was a long time ago. What I do remember is that in my project I would make reference to a service location and then use that reference to call whatever method I needed.
EX: I would reference http://mydomain/webservicename/mobile.asmx and then would call objWS.MethodName() what was coded within the mobile.asmx file.
If I convert over to using a Web API I would basically call the HTTP by going to something like http://mydomain/controllername/myMethod.
As of right now I don't have access to the client code to be able to change the way that it calls the service. That being said am I stuck with using a traditional web service vs web api?
This is an app on a handheld scanner that I believe is running Windows CE. We are having some connectivity issues/database deadlocks and I was asked to look at it and see if I can help out. The current WS code is overly complicated IMO since it's only doing either an insert or an update to a database. I would also think that going with a Web API would make it a faster app since it's depending on cellular access for it's communication. JSON should be a smaller payload than XML.
So, I would like to just re-write it using Web API 2 and Entity Framework. However, I'm afraid I'm stuck to using WS since I don't have access to the client code.
Any suggestions?
It's a fairly broad architectural suggestion, but what you're proposing certainly sounds possible and even quite reasonable.
If I understand correctly, you currently have this:
Client -> ASMX Service
And you can't change the Client, only the ASMX Service. The first thing you're going to want to do this ensure that server-side business logic is de-coupled from the platform technology:
Client -> ASMX Service -> Business Logic
The idea here is that any application host should be able to reasonably invoke the same business logic, even if that logic is nothing more than direct database access. The application host itself should be little more than a pass-through set of operations to be invoked.
At that point, you can create a second application host alongside the first one:
Client -> ASMX Service ----|
|-> Business Logic
WebAPI Service --|
So now you have two different services which expose the same business logic, using two different web service technologies. Each of them should be very thin, as application host technologies should always be easily replaceable.
At this point, assuming there are no significant gaps in the operations available between the two services, you can publish the new service's specifications to clients and begin plans to deprecate the old service. When you can deprecate it is more of a contractual issue than a technical issue. However long you've committed to maintaining it, that's how long clients will have a reasonable expectation to still use it.
If you really want to, you can even have the ASMX Service be a pass-through to the WebAPI Service, but in my personal experience that adds unnecessary layering to the whole setup and artificially complicates the abstraction of the business logic. Either way, the interface exposed by the ASMX Service wouldn't change.
The main thing here is the logical abstraction of the operations being exposed and the analysis of any gaps between what the ASMX Service can do and what the WebAPI Service can do. If that gets complex, then that's an indication that the business logic (and indeed the whole solution domain) is tightly coupled to the application technology being used, namely ASMX web services. That is the problem to be solved. Once solved, creating different application hosts and exposing different services which invoke the same underlying business operations becomes almost trivial.
You are right; you are stuck if you can't change the client and you want to change service protocols. Your client currently has a specific .asmx endpoint it is configured to point to and until you can update that endpoint and have the client stop using the proxy generated from the service, you can't change to Web API.
I'd still rewrite the service to use EF, though.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I've spent a few months trying to grasp the concepts behind WCF and recently I've developed my first WCF service application.
I've struggled quite a bit to understand all the settings in the config file.
I am not convinced about the environment but it seems that you can do amazing stuff with it.
The other day I've found out that Microsoft has come out with a new thing called ASP.NET Web API.
For what I can read it's a RESTful framework, very easy to use and implement.
Now, I am trying to figure out what are the main differences between the 2 frameworks and if I should try and convert my old WCF service application with the new API.
Could someone, please, help me to understand the differences and usage of each?
For us, WCF is used for SOAP and Web API for REST. I wish Web API supported SOAP too. We are not using advanced features of WCF. Here is comparison from MSDN:
The new ASP.NET Web API is a continuation of the previous WCF Web API project (although some of the concepts have changed).
WCF was originally created to enable SOAP-based services. For simpler RESTful or RPCish services (think clients like jQuery) ASP.NET Web API should be good choice.
ASP.net Web API is all about HTTP and REST based GET,POST,PUT,DELETE with well know ASP.net MVC style of programming and JSON returnable; web API is for all the light weight process and pure HTTP based components. For one to go ahead with WCF even for simple or simplest single web service it will bring all the extra baggage. For light weight simple service for ajax or dynamic calls always WebApi just solves the need. This neatly complements or helps in parallel to the ASP.net MVC.
Check out the podcast : Hanselminutes Podcast 264 - This is not your father's WCF - All about the WebAPI with Glenn Block by Scott Hanselman for more information.
In the scenarios listed below you should go for WCF:
If you need to send data on protocols like TCP, MSMQ or MIME
If the consuming client just knows how to consume SOAP messages
WEB API is a framework for developing RESTful/HTTP services.
There are so many clients that do not understand SOAP like Browsers, HTML5, in those cases WEB APIs are a good choice.
HTTP services header specifies how to secure service, how to cache the information, type of the message body and HTTP body can specify any type of content like HTML not just XML as SOAP services.
Since using both till now, I have found many differences between WCF and Web API. Both technology stacks are suited well to different scenarios, so it is not possible to say which is better, this depends on configuration and scenario.
Properties ASP.Net Web API WCF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End point (mainly) Http based SOAP based
Service Type Front End Back-end
Support caching, compression, versioning No
Framework ASP.net WCF
Orientation Resource Oriented Service Oriented
Transports http http, tcp, MSMQ, Named pipe
Message pattern Request reply request Reply, one way, duplex
Configuration overhead Less Much
Security lesser than WCF (web standard security) Very high (WS-I standard)
Hosting IIS IIS, Windows Service, Self hosting
Performance Fast A bit slower than Web API
In use from .NET 4.0 .NET 3.5
Note: The data is not only my view, it is also collected from other official websites.
WCF will give you so much of out the box, it's not even comparable to anything. Unless you want to do on your own implementation of (to name a few) authentication, authorization, encryption, queuing, throttling, reliable messaging, logging, sessions and so on. WCF is not [only] web services; WCF is a development platform for SOA.
Why I'm answering:
I took huge amount of time to understand the difference between these two technologies. I'll put all those points here that I think "If I had these points at the time when I was wondering around in search of this answer, then I have decided very earlier in selecting my required technology."
Source of Information:
Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2015 Unleashed
ISBN-13: 978-0-672-33736-9 ISBN-10: 0-672-33736-3
Why ASP.NET Web API and WCF:
Before comparing the technologies of ASP.NET Web API and WCF, it is important to understand there are actually two styles/standards for creating web services: REST (Representational State Transfer) and SOAP/WSDL. The SOAP/WSDL was the original standard on which web services were built. However, it was difficult to use and had bulky message formats (like XML) that degraded performance. REST-based services quickly became the alternative. They are easier to write because they leverage the basic constructs of HTTP (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) and typically use smaller message formats (like JSON). As a result, REST-based HTTP services are now the standard for writing services that strictly target the Web.
Let's define purpose of ASP.NET Web API
ASP.NET Web API is Microsoft’s technology for developing REST-based HTTP web services. (It long ago replaced Microsoft’s ASMX, which was based on SOAP/WSDL.) The Web API makes it easy to write robust services based on HTTP protocols that all browsers and native devices understand. This enables you to create services to support your application and call them from other web applications, tablets, mobile phones, PCs, and gaming consoles. The majority of applications written today to leverage the ever present Web connection use HTTP services in some way.
Let's now define purpose of WCF:
Communicating across the Internet is not always the most efficient means. For example, if both the client and the service exist on the same technology (or even the same machine), they can often negotiate a more efficient means to communicate (such as TCP/IP). Service developers found themselves making the same choices they were trying to avoid. They now would have to choose between creating efficient internal services and being able to have the broad access found over the Internet. And, if they had to support both, they might have to create multiple versions of their service or at least separate proxies for accessing their service. This is the problem Microsoft solved with WCF.
With WCF, you can create your service without concern for boundaries. You can then let WCF worry about running your service in the most efficient way, depending on the calling client. To manage this task, WCF uses the concept of endpoints. Your service might have multiple endpoints (configured at design time or after deployment). Each endpoint indicates how the service might support a calling client: over the Web, via remoting, through Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ), and more. WCF enables you to focus on creating your service functionality. It worries about how to most efficiently speak with calling clients. In this way, a single WCF service can efficiently support many different client types.
Example of WCF:
Consider the example:
The customer data is shared among the applications. Each application might be written on a different platform, and it might exist in a different location. You can extract the customer interface into a WCF service that provides common access to shared customer data. This centralizes the data, reduces duplication, eliminates synchronization, and simplifies management. In addition, by using WCF, you can configure the service endpoints to work in the way that makes sense to the calling client. Figure shows the example from before with centralized access of customer data in a WCF service.
Conclusion:
i) When to choose Web API:
There is no denying that REST-based HTTP services like those created using ASP.NET Web API have become the standard for building web services. These services offer an easy, straightforward approach for web developers building services. Web developers understand HTTP GET and POST and thus adapt well to these types of services. Therefore, if you are writing services strictly targeted to HTTP, ASP.NET Web API is the logical choice.
ii) When to choose WCF:
The WCF technology is useful when you need to support multiple service endpoints based on different protocols and message formats. Products like Microsoft BizTalk leverage WCF for creating robust services that can be used over the Web as well via different machine-to-machine configurations.If, however, you do need to write an application that communicates over TCP/IP when connected to the local network and works over HTTP when outside the network, WCF is your answer.
Be Warned:
Web developers often view WCF as more difficult and complex to develop against. Therefore, if you do not foresee the need for multiprotocol services, you would likely stick with ASP.NET Web API.
There is a comparison on MSDN about this
WCF and ASP.NET Web API
For me, the choice was about Who the clients are, and where are they located?
Within the company Network and .NET based clients : Use WCF with TCP binding (Fast communication than HTTP)
Outside the company Network, and use diverse technologies like PHP, Python etc: Use Web API with REST
Business speaking, WebApi lacks of a WSDL, so the developers should document all manually. And if, for example, the WebApi operation returns a list of objects then, the client should creates the objects manually, i.e. WebAPI is really prone to errors of definitions.
The pro of Webapi is its more lightweight than WCF.
Regarding the statement "WebApi lacks of WSDL" there are several ways to generate Rest client. One popular approach is Swagger UI / (Swashbukkle Nuget). This gives a rich interface to understand the REST end point's input and output schema and online tool to test the end points.
JSON LD (Json Linked Documents) is another emerging standard which will further improve the JSON based REST developer experience by exposing the JSON schema with better semantics.
With wcf we can configure and expose the same service support for multiple endpoints like tcp, http.if you want your service to be only http based then it will be better to go with web API. Web API has very less configuration when compared to wcf and is bit faster than wcf. Wcf also supports restful services. If you have limitation of .Net framework 3.5 then your option is wcf.
We have an application in which we have created a service layer with most of the business logic and utility services (logging, exceptions, caching etc). We have to come with a way to expose this service as an API to the UI components. Here are some of our requirements:
We would like to create multiple
components based on the service.
We would like third party developers
to use our service to create their
own components or utilize our data.
For scalability we would like to have
a multiple instances installed on
different boxes. Similarly there
could be more than an instance of the
same UI component.
One way to expose the service layer is to host it under a REST based WCF layer.
The other way is to host the service in model layer of an ASP.Net MVC project. The UI components will be hosted in MVC projects of their own. The Javascript in the views of UI components will directly call the controllers of service project.
WCF is supposed to be very heavyweight option. On the other hand I am not too convinced with the MVC approach as I feel that this is not purpose it is meant for.
Could you please recommend me a way in Microsoft world to expose our service layer.
WCF seems to be the way to go here. Although WCF started out (in my oppinion) as a beast, it got tamed over the years with better HTTP and JSON support and less custom configuration (although still allowing you to modefy basicly every little aspect of your service).
Exposing your current service layer as a REST Service is a breeze and allows your customers/yourself to easily consume it on any device that supports HTTP.
See: http://codebetter.com/glennblock/2010/11/01/wcf-web-apis-http-your-way/
Models are not services. Models are POCOs that hold data.
You can expose your service through a WCF Service, and let your ASP.NET MVC app consume it. If you're always sure that the service will run on the same box as the client app, you can use named pipes for transport -- then the overhead of WCF is minimal, compared to the advantages.
WCF seems to be the direction that Microsoft is headed for this and for good reason. WCF services are the best option here because you mentioned third-party development support. Because these web services are defined by a WSDL, they are cross platform and can be consumed by non .NET applications.
It perfectly seperates your service layer to be consumed by ANY components.
Ok, all these methods of getting data in a Silverlight control are confusing me.
I've looked at ADO.Net Data Services, Web Service and Silverlight-enabled WCF services.
I'm just not sure when one is appropriate to use over another. What pros/cons do each offer?
I've built a web app, and a Silverlight control. I will be adding one of those 3 options to my web application and consuming it from my Silverlight component.
From the silverlight perspective, WCF is heavily constrained anyway, so most of the usual benefits of WCF don't apply. However, it is still a fairly nice, consistent programming model.
WCF is primarily a SOAP stack, so it is very good at presenting data as rigid operations. ADO.NET Data Services is a REST stack, and allows very expressive queries to be performed dynamically over the wire.
I don't know how it is in Silverlight, but a regular ADO.NET Data Services proxy (the bit on your client app) has very rich support for both query and data changes back to the server. Note that applying changes requires either a: Entity Framework, or b: lots of work. But you should get query and update very cheaply with this approach.
With WCF, you get a much more controlled stack, so you will need to code all the distinct operations you want to be able to do. But this also means you have a known attack surface etc; it is much harder to exploit a locked down API like a fixed SOAP endpoint.
Re regular web-services (pre-WCF): only go down that route if you want to support very specific legacy callers.
I know this is old, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents.
I would highly recommend using WCF; and use the WCF Service Library project over the Silverlight-enabled web service. They are both essentially the same, but the Silverlight-enabled web service changes the binding to basic instead of ws*. It also adds an asp.net compatibility mode attribute.
WCF is usually faster: See "A Performance Comparison of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) with Existing Distributed Communication Technologies" # http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb310550.aspx
WCF encapsulates asmx, wse, msmq, enterprise services, and remoting.
WCF services can be included and run within iis, windows forms, etc.
WCF isn't restricted to using HTTP, but with minimal configuration can also use tcp, named pipes etc.
complex data types are easier to expose and serialize.
WCF just scales really well. Plus, they can be used to incorporate workflows from WF.
There's probably not a wrong technology to use, but it seems as if Microsoft is going to be moving forward with WCF. Plus, it's just so much easier to write one code base that can be exposed so many different ways with just a few configuration changes to the WCF service.
I recommend not using the Silverlight-enabled web service, just because the programming structure is set up a little better with the WCF model, but this is probably a matter of opinion.
If you have to choose between a web service and a WCF service, my advice is to go with WCF. It's more modern and more powerful technology. As for ADO.Net Data Services - you can use that if all you need is to retrieve/commit some data from/to a database back on the server.