Last post May 16, 2013 11:31 PM by mrrogers
Jun 04, 2010 12:41 PM|jdhavo|LINK
I was going to create a WCF service to consume in a client application. With the EXTREME compexity of WCF, I decided i better find out WHY I WOULD EVER USER SUCH A MESS!
Can someone explain WHY a WCF service would ever be used instead of a web service. I don't really have time to attend all the training classes necessary to use WCF and with the months I have been attempting to create a single Hello World service and publish,
I would really like to know if this can even be done or why would it be used?
What a major cluster f&%k.
The Hello World basic out of the box service doesn't even work. How would you ever create one for use with actual functionality. The out of the box one creates a url with Design_Time_Addresses in it. When navigating to the address, you just get page not
Sorry for the bad attitude. I've just wasted so much time on WCF with absolutely NO SUCCESS!
Jun 05, 2010 09:45 AM|chandradev1|LINK
1.It Can be accessed only over HTTP
2.It works in stateless environment
WCF is flexible because its services can be hosted in different types of applications. The following lists several common scenarios for hosting WCF services:
Managed Windows Service
Jun 05, 2010 09:49 AM|chandradev1|LINK
check this link
Jun 08, 2010 08:33 AM|jdhavo|LINK
Thank you for the reply. What I've come to find out is that WCF provides little (if any) benefit over standard asp.net web services and are much more complicated to implement. I've done some research and since WCF is not compatible with most clients is
not the preferred direction. Hopefully Microsoft will expand WCF capabilities/compatabilities/flexibility in the future but for the foreseeable future, standard web services are preferred.
A true web service will hopefully be coming from Microsoft in the future.
Jun 08, 2010 10:24 AM|chandradev1|LINK
WCF is very good as compare to Web service. Web service only use HTTP protocal while communicating between one application to other application. If sombody is using other protocal then we can't communicate using "web service". But using WCF we can communicate.
Creating WCF is also similiar to Web service.
Here are some usefull link of web service and WCF
Jun 09, 2010 06:56 AM|formationusa|LINK
Just wanted to share my opinion on WCF,
things have been simplified a lot in WCF 4.0. Also the support for OData (formerly ado.net data services) has brought even more flexibility, knowing when to use Odata and when to use Full wcf Methods, depending on wether you need data only or a more complexe
operation from the service.
Also, a great tool is the Managed Services Engine, which helps virtualization and versionning of wcf services.
On the other hand, it is true that there's a considerable complexity added, and there must be a need for WCF.
How else would it work on Silverlight or WPF apps with WCF though?
I think it will take time before we can all get a good grip of what the .NET framework offers, as it gets wider and wider in terms of size and complexity.
Jun 09, 2010 02:23 PM|atconway|LINK
What I've come to find out is that WCF provides little (if any) benefit over standard asp.net web services
Unfortunantly this statement is false.
and are much more complicated to implement.
Unfortunantly this statement is true.
WCF has tons and tons more functionality as compared to the becoming obsolete XML web services. (in terms of what type of service to build.. just look at WSE -> no improvements = Microsoft's way of moving us all to WCF). The communication protocols (HTTP,
TCP, Named Pipes), hosting environment (IIS, Windows Service, WAS), and security benefits options just to name a few heavily outweigh the .asmx web services functionality. Performance is many times better too with WCF. Take a look to the following article:
A Performance Comparison of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) with Existing Distributed Communication Technologies:
This all comes at a cost... which is a more complex configuration. Even the most seasoned developers get tangled in WCF configuration, especially for the more advanced configurations. For .asmx web services... it was like all you had to do is add a 'WebMethod'
attribute to an existing function and you had a web service. Totally agreed that .asmx services are much more straight forward.
It just depends of your intentions. If you need a fast, reliable, and up to date secure service than WCF is the way to go. If this is a 1 off service for 2 users internally, where security and functionality is not of high concern, than you could whip up
a .asmx service and publish it out quickly. However make no doubt about it, WCF is head and shoulders above .asmx services. You will become more familiar with their configuration after doing a few, and there is a bunch of information on the web for creating
and configuring them. Take a look here if you have not already:
Beginner's Guide to Windows Communication Foundation:
Hope this helps!
May 16, 2013 11:31 PM|mrrogers|LINK
Unfortuneatly jdhavo you are correct and many of us have found this out far too late (after implementing WCF service). And MS has all but admitted this in abandoning WCF in favor of WebAPI (which looks close to standard asmx services). I guess they never