Last post Nov 10, 2013 08:23 PM by Amy Peng - MSFT
Nov 03, 2013 12:49 PM|dotnetterAMG123|LINK
Hello, the request/response design pattern is pretty standard in the implementation of modern enterprise and commercial web services. Essentially, the parameters sent to the service are properties of a parent request object, like MyServiceRequest,
and the data and information returned from the service are properties of a parent response object, like MyServiceResponse.
So, is there a simple, standard, way to describe a web service, that does *not* use the request/response design pattern? For example, a web service that accepts 3 different parameters, and returns a generic list of objects? I would say this example
uses simple types instead of a request/response design pattern. Is there a more appropriate, general technical term to describe this type of web service that does *not* implement a request/response design pattern?
Nov 04, 2013 03:47 AM|Siva Krishna Macha|LINK
I think what you are looking at is - "RESTful WCF Servies" where we can create services without SOAP envelops and the request and response wrappers.
In REST pattern, we can create urls very simple and we can get the response something like POX or JSON formats as well.
You may have to look at the below articles to understand above:
Please mark this as answer if this answers your question.
Nov 04, 2013 08:02 AM|Illeris|LINK
Actually, REST is just another implementation of request/response.
An alternative is publisch/subscibe where you reverse the logic (you do not request info, you get notified there is information available that might interest you). However I somewhere have the feeling your question is not about communication theory.
What is your concrete problem/challenge?
Nov 04, 2013 09:56 AM|dotnetterAMG123|LINK
Nov 05, 2013 08:07 AM|Illeris|LINK
Entirely correct. Service architectures implement the request/reply mechanism. In some cases you do not need a reply. This simplified version is sometimes called "fire&forget".
Nov 10, 2013 08:23 PM|Amy Peng - MSFT|LINK
Also, please try to check the reply in: