C# WCF Dead or alive?
-
As far as I know SignalR is something completely different. SignalR supports two way HTTP(S) requests using web sockets. WCF supports all sorts of communication (through configuration), like HTTP(S), pipes, SOAP, and can, in theory, be used on any host (IIS/WAS, Windows Service, do we have any other flavors?). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
I bought a book on it.[^] I'm about half way through it. It uses the best method it can to maintain a connection, based on that platform you're running it on. Web Sockets is one. I'm a fan of WCF, but it can be a real PITA to configure. What I like about SignalR over WCF is that it's stupid simple to set up and maintain.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
-
Foothill wrote:
I was suffering from information overload by the end of the first chapter
That's what I often dislike about books and what I try to avoid in my own writing. Why can't we start out making a really simple service (like the example you get when you create a new WCF project) and go from there? Nowhere along the way should you feel overwhelmed. In fact, you should feel like the book (or blog) just gave you enough information to confidently start experimenting on your own! Explain something like Miffy[^] would do without losing any depth on the subject!
Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
I was kind of hoping for it to start with: here is the absolute minimum you need for a WCF service to run; now let's show you all the fun things you can do. Alas, the book reads more like technical documentation. If I wanted a sleep aid, I would browse over to the RFC standards archives. I find the text for RFC 822 especially riveting X| ;P
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
i see a lot of blog posts around the internet that says WCF is Dead, any other thoughts?
Who told you? The management, the tech team. Or you just heard it. I suspect the former one.
-
I bought a book on it.[^] I'm about half way through it. It uses the best method it can to maintain a connection, based on that platform you're running it on. Web Sockets is one. I'm a fan of WCF, but it can be a real PITA to configure. What I like about SignalR over WCF is that it's stupid simple to set up and maintain.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
Nice, seems SignalR does more than I thought. Going to check it out for sure :thumbsup:
Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
I was kind of hoping for it to start with: here is the absolute minimum you need for a WCF service to run; now let's show you all the fun things you can do. Alas, the book reads more like technical documentation. If I wanted a sleep aid, I would browse over to the RFC standards archives. I find the text for RFC 822 especially riveting X| ;P
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Oh! That looks interzzzzzz... :laugh:
Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
Now why didn't I think I that? oh ya, I don't have 79 friends.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
-
Nice, seems SignalR does more than I thought. Going to check it out for sure :thumbsup:
Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Yup but still I think, WCF vs SignalR is not the right comparison to do. WCF is the bigger brother. It's a platform. A platform that's getting eclipsed by the recent Asp.net MVC Web APIs. Sadly WCF would fade out from so many day-to-day applications.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
-
i see a lot of blog posts around the internet that says WCF is Dead, any other thoughts?
Dead in many ways. Alive in few ways. Dead - The world has moved away from SOA-WebServices-XML-UDDI etc. Which was like prime for WCF. With Web-API-JSON, it's ultra quick and development ease is like amazing. Asp.net MVC based API has brought things to super cool level. You can , so damn easily manage your URL paths based on different needs, with the "the controllers/actions" in MVC. It's just out of the box. It's highly salable, maintenance , deployment everything is so easy. And mind you, I remember the days, I had spent hours and hours fiddling with issue in Windows Phone Client WCF Async Proxy code. It just sucked like hell. Such a simple thing goes screwed. MS tools were so stupid for the job. Everything is out now. Web-API just made it so lightly coupled. You care a damn about where the services are hosted. No proxy generation , nothing is required. And you can switch between any stack as you want. The client just needs to get updated about the service URL changes. We can do all these in WCF, by patching up the code, but it doesn't look so pro. And guess what, Microsoft is not going to support WCF for REST model. We just hit the wall there. For most of the daily application needs, all we need is just Client-Server model that sends Data. Web-API-JSON combo just fits the need for most of these. So WCF would be dead here in all these. But if you want to go for advanced Customized Network components, WCF is still there. You can fiddle with all Binding, Security, endpoints, etc etc. There are a pile of things you can configure.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
-
Gabriel Sas wrote:
any other thoughts?
I wonder how they get corks into bottles.
veni bibi saltavi
-
i see a lot of blog posts around the internet that says WCF is Dead, any other thoughts?
Gabriel Sas wrote:
any other thoughts?
Do penguins have knees? :confused: Seriously, I have heard no such thing, so I wonder if it isn't just idle speculation??? On the other hand, the death of Silverlight also came as a huge surprise to me, so what the heck do I know?
Gabriel Sas wrote:
C# WCF Dead or alive?
It must be alive, otherwise someone would have written a RIP post here in the Lounge :doh:
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time -
As far as I know SignalR is something completely different. SignalR supports two way HTTP(S) requests using web sockets. WCF supports all sorts of communication (through configuration), like HTTP(S), pipes, SOAP, and can, in theory, be used on any host (IIS/WAS, Windows Service, do we have any other flavors?). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Sander Rossel wrote:
and can, in theory, be used on any host (IIS/WAS, Windows Service, do we have any other flavors?).
Selfhosted.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Dead in many ways. Alive in few ways. Dead - The world has moved away from SOA-WebServices-XML-UDDI etc. Which was like prime for WCF. With Web-API-JSON, it's ultra quick and development ease is like amazing. Asp.net MVC based API has brought things to super cool level. You can , so damn easily manage your URL paths based on different needs, with the "the controllers/actions" in MVC. It's just out of the box. It's highly salable, maintenance , deployment everything is so easy. And mind you, I remember the days, I had spent hours and hours fiddling with issue in Windows Phone Client WCF Async Proxy code. It just sucked like hell. Such a simple thing goes screwed. MS tools were so stupid for the job. Everything is out now. Web-API just made it so lightly coupled. You care a damn about where the services are hosted. No proxy generation , nothing is required. And you can switch between any stack as you want. The client just needs to get updated about the service URL changes. We can do all these in WCF, by patching up the code, but it doesn't look so pro. And guess what, Microsoft is not going to support WCF for REST model. We just hit the wall there. For most of the daily application needs, all we need is just Client-Server model that sends Data. Web-API-JSON combo just fits the need for most of these. So WCF would be dead here in all these. But if you want to go for advanced Customized Network components, WCF is still there. You can fiddle with all Binding, Security, endpoints, etc etc. There are a pile of things you can configure.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
Vunic wrote:
And guess what, Microsoft is not going to support WCF for REST model.
Just implemented that last month. It wasn't the easiest (as with anything WCF), and I would probably use Web Api next time instead, but it works.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
i see a lot of blog posts around the internet that says WCF is Dead, any other thoughts?
I don't think it is dead just set aside. Who knows it may come back when people decide to use it more than it is being used these days.
-
Vunic wrote:
And guess what, Microsoft is not going to support WCF for REST model.
Just implemented that last month. It wasn't the easiest (as with anything WCF), and I would probably use Web Api next time instead, but it works.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
The MS folks (Who are in touch with us consulting things) , themselves recommended to move out of WCF long ago saying anything related to REST, will not be updated on WCF. WebAPI is the new way!. So we cleaned up our circus of REST on WCF and moved to WebAPI. You would love it! WebAPI is super cool and simple, for all the basic data transactions it's just more than enough!
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
-
The MS folks (Who are in touch with us consulting things) , themselves recommended to move out of WCF long ago saying anything related to REST, will not be updated on WCF. WebAPI is the new way!. So we cleaned up our circus of REST on WCF and moved to WebAPI. You would love it! WebAPI is super cool and simple, for all the basic data transactions it's just more than enough!
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
Ok, then I'll do that instead next time.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
i see a lot of blog posts around the internet that says WCF is Dead, any other thoughts?
They are wrong. WCF is... DEADBORN. So it's hard to say "zombie is alive/not alive", it's just zombie who fed by MS money and enthusiasm of stupids. We already have more than enough - TCP/IP, SOAP, JSON-RPC and even Protocol buffers from Google students. WHY MORE?! I say why - to hold stronger your eggs on MS hooks. Period. No any tech reason exist to jump on another "order of bytes in a stream".
-
i see a lot of blog posts around the internet that says WCF is Dead, any other thoughts?
I see a lot of stupid statements on the Internet. While it is certainly true that WCF has fallen out of the shiny favor. But that is far from dead. Many of those probably believe that soon everything on the internet will be done through a restful http interface.
-
:laugh: You are the man. That has the potential to send posts to the Abyss! You should have really gone for a clear YATCITA!
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
YATCITA?
Cheers, Mike Fidler "I intend to live forever - so far, so good." Steven Wright "I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met." Also Steven Wright "I'm addicted to placebos. I could quit, but it wouldn't matter." Steven Wright yet again.
-
YATCITA?
Cheers, Mike Fidler "I intend to live forever - so far, so good." Steven Wright "I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met." Also Steven Wright "I'm addicted to placebos. I could quit, but it wouldn't matter." Steven Wright yet again.
-
As far as I know SignalR is something completely different. SignalR supports two way HTTP(S) requests using web sockets. WCF supports all sorts of communication (through configuration), like HTTP(S), pipes, SOAP, and can, in theory, be used on any host (IIS/WAS, Windows Service, do we have any other flavors?). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Absolutely, much less named pipes and many different forms of authentication. WCF is a bit like XML or Microsoft Office. It can do sooooo much more than most people realize or what most people use it for. When you need it, it's really nice, but often difficult to learn and master. I've been hearing people calling RoR and jQuery dead, but I still find myself using jQuery once in a while.
