We were just following the example MSoft gave but there example has everything in the same solutio. But it was easy to host the server and connect to it remotely and get the meta data and build the proxy with the service reference tool.
i have used your application and its awesome.
it worked properly but when i import your complete project into my project then Client side started giving error about "no end point" but Host is working properly.what to do with Client??
This sounds like you are trying to respond to an article. The best way to do that is on the forum at the bottom of the actual article. The author of the particular article you are referring to might not even visit this forum.
When I was a coder, we worked on algorithms. Today, we memorize APIs for countless libraries — those libraries have the algorithms - Eric Allman
I have a Server 2003 machine at home. I want to host a WCF service that I can access from my office. I know how to create the service. I just don't what's involved in setting up my server to host it. Is it just a port that I need to open. Any help is appreciated.
I'm putting together a prototype. I have 2 PC's with a WCF service running on one, and I want to consume it from the other. What do I have to do to expose the service so I can access it from the other PC?
I have a wcf service setup for windows authentication. I have a silverlight application that allows users to navigate the web pages based on Active Directory windows authentication and there group roles. The problem I am having is that my wcf service does not allow for role based group security. Because of this, any active directory user is able to call any of the wcf service's web method no matter what their group role is. I need to setup my wcf service to only allow users in certain roles to call a subset of the services web methods. Please help.
That said you should also consider what is likely to happen rather than trying to adjust to all possible outcomes. Normally you are unlikely to do more than add new attributes to existing entities. More significant changes should require a version (specified via the base url) change.
Other than that I would consider your base class example (Employee/Person) suspect because it should only occur if someone badly messed up the original architecture.
This is not at all true. An object that is published in a webservice can be used
with in the system publishing the service. If that system decides to extend the
object for whatever reason it should be allowed to with out breaking its
publishing, thus having to version etc.
That however is not what I said.
The fact that something is possible doesn't mean that all possible scenarios that lead to that possibility are good.
Your example demonstrates something that in all likelyhood started with a poor design and someone attempts to 'correct' it (hopefully not just making the original bad design worse.)
In fact, for all purposes that is how it will be serialized. This is in fact
common refactoring practice (not poor design adjustments).
I know how inheritance works.
They way I read this entire thread was that the FIRST version (where you used "at first" in the OP) of the web interface would have a data object which did not use inheritance.
Then the SECOND version of the web interface, where I assumed it was second because you said "will the client still receive", was adding inheritance.
Thus one started with a public facing design for the first version and it was released that way. Then the decided that the second version would use inheritance, in the public facing api.
A public facing interface is not a simple implementation and should be given a thorough review BEFORE implementing to it. To rework it in version two with the specific semantics suggested with the expectation that version 1 clients should still consume it, strongly suggests that the original design was poorly thought out.
The most important factor in the above is not whether inheritance or not should be used but rather that it is public API.
But regardless of that inheritance should be used carefully in all code and most of the time a public web interface should not be using it (just as mos code should not use it.) This also is another factor that suggests that the sequence (design of 1 leading to 2) is somehow flawed.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Please read posts more carefully before critizing someones 'simple' example as a
poor design. There was no design in it. It was meant to be an example for clear
question that would obtain a clear answer.
First I didn't claim that it was absolutely a poor design but rather it likely was. And I was referring to a real implementation of such a design and NOT just the example.
Second, it appears that you are distancing yourself from the fact that it is a represents a design in the first place.
So let me make it more clear what I said...
If such an implementation existed in version one of a public API and if ones follow up solution in version two was to use inheritance then that suggests that there is a design flaw either in version one, two or both.
To which you did not answer but provided a link. Useful link, but still not an
actual answer. Move along, nothing to see here.
To be clear actually I also said
"DataMember has Properties which can change the behavior."
My first inclination was to post just the properties but I thought that link was better since it was the one I used to base the standards on which my company, based on their practices, needs and expectations, moves forward in adopting to new versions of web interfaces.
Other companies have different needs and as such they should come up with their own approach. One can't do based solely on the need to use a web interface, but rather it must also take into account the business needs of the company.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Who the frak cares about poor design or any design for that matter in this
Still not clear...you are both defending the design and claiming that it isn't a design.
As I made clear several times if that was a design then it suggests a problem. So you are stating it isn't a design thus you do not need to defend it as such.
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 19:00 Last Update: 18-Jan-18 12:06