search

dotnet / wcf

This repo contains the client-oriented WCF libraries that enable applications built on .NET Core to communicate with WCF services.
MIT License
1.69k stars 557 forks source link

Server side WCF #1200

Closed jan-johansson-mr closed 6 years ago

jan-johansson-mr commented 8 years ago

Hi,

I'd like to start a thread to have a dialog about server side WCF on .NET Core. For me the WCF stack is quite impressive, and support for server side WCF on .NET Core would be fantastic. Please feel free to add your opinions to the thread.

Here is a list of some of the WCF features (that comes to my mind):

These features and more are for me very desirable, but some might be harder to support (e.g. WCF transactions relies on MS DTC (as fas as I know), but transactions enabled communication on a server side is a very important feature).

I hope you're as excited as I am about WCF, and even more so for a server side WCF on .NET Core.

SamuelCox commented 6 years ago

Actually I agree with @jbogard. I go back on my previous comment on the issue, I had no idea about the options for SOA and microservices in .NET core, but now I do, so I'm not bothered about WCF now.

ccicchitelli commented 6 years ago

"Actually I agree with @jbogard. I go back on my previous comment on the issue, I had no idea about the options for SOA and microservices in .NET core, but now I do, so I'm not bothered about WCF now."

Care to share with us what you found for options?

SamuelCox commented 6 years ago

@ccicchitelli Depends on what exact kind of architecture you want to take. Personally my preferred microservices architecture for .NET core, is self contained console apps (or windows services if you want to take a dependency on windows) that communicate via an Enterprise Service Bus. Seems the most loosely coupled option.

But, you don't have to do that via an enterprise service bus, you could equally do it via RPC, or even just make each microservice a REST endpoint. Admittedly, making them REST endpoints I wouldn't advise, as your applications become a bit more coupled to your microservices at that point, but it is still an option.

There's also a wealth of options if you're willing to use Azure, such as Service Fabric, which is clearly really powerful, but obviously not great that you're forced to use Azure. There's also Orleans and Akka.Net

Obviously, most of these options do involve taking a third party dependency, but typically not many, just a couple. Certainly it doesn't require a lot of custom code though.

ccicchitelli commented 6 years ago

Those options you list aren't in the .NET Framework...

SamuelCox commented 6 years ago

@ccicchitelli Some of them are, some of them aren't. Certainly REST is. All of them are options .net code can make use of though, so what does it matter? Embrace OSS .Net! :D

ccicchitelli commented 6 years ago

Fundamentally Microsoft needs to ask what they expect for .NET Core if they aren't going to natively support enterprise-level SOA tooling like they do in the desktop framework.

Because I'll tell them right now, they will lose to NodeJS if they haven't already... If I was starting over building microservices at this point .NET Core wouldn't even be a consideration and it would be all Node. That's where the community is - Microsoft has no choice but to support it IMHO.

SamuelCox commented 6 years ago

@ccicchitelli I disagree entirely, but each to their own.

ccicchitelli commented 6 years ago

If I have to rely on the community I don't really think it's debatable which has the stronger tooling for SOA. It's not .NET Core. My day job is replacing the entire SOA for a Fortune 50 with Node, so...

The beauty of .NET, the reason it exists at all and why it is so popular in the enterprise, is because it has not only everything built in, but supported by all the weight of Microsoft.

If they aren't willing to do that for .NET Core I agree it's a business decision to prioritize Windows and Azure, but know that those of who are building cross platform SOA will go with Node or something else in droves.

forki commented 6 years ago

Ok now I'm curious. What SOA stuff can you do with node that you can't with asp.net core?

ccicchitelli commented 6 years ago

I think the better question is, what can you do with WCF that you can't do with ASP.NET Core (and again, why are we in ASP-land? We're not trying to serve client apps..). Dotnetchris mentions it here.

SamuelCox commented 6 years ago

@ccicchitelli That's not really answering @Forki 's question. From what I know of NodeJs, everything you can do in node without a third party lib is exactly the same as what you can do in asp.net core without a lib.

ccicchitelli commented 6 years ago

"everything you can do in node without a third party lib is exactly the same as what you can do in asp.net core without a lib."

That's exactly what I said. And since it's all third-party, I'm going to pick the one with the larger and more active community, with the larger corporate backing. Right now that's Node and JS, not .NET Core and C#.

WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful. It's just a matter of whether that will be forever tied to Windows and Azure, or be set free.

scotthurlbert commented 6 years ago

Agreed - "WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful."

The purpose of this list was to gauge interest.

Other peopel's lack of interest or ability to "do it another way using none .NET libraries" in any way addresses the question that was asked and the reasons for our responses.

Also, the purpose of this was not to educate each other on SOA and all of the thousands of ways it can be achieved. The question was put out "Should WCF be added to .NET core."

If I'm trying to get a team to use WCF, the single biggest selling point I have is that it's part of the .NET framework. Why? Because I'm an experienced guy and most of the audience is managers, PMs, junior developers, developers, or junior architects. There are maybe 2 or 3 people on any given team that understand anything about SO. The reason they have guys "like us" on the team is to make quality recommendations and using what's right in front of you that is industrial strength, proven, and enterprise ready is a pretty good thing to suggest.

Can SO be done on .NET in other ways? No one here is asking that question (or at least that's not the purpose of this thread).

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:34 AM, ccicchitelli notifications@github.com wrote:

"everything you can do in node without a third party lib is exactly the same as what you can do in asp.net core without a lib."

That's exactly what I said. And since it's all third-party, I'm going to pick the one with the larger and more active community, with the larger corporate backing. Right now that's Node and JS, not .NET Core and C#.

WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful. It's just a matter of whether that will be forever tied to Windows and Azure, or be set free.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-355846393, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABo_EikmxOqk1khkj4YGC3I4UxBvMoJFks5tIRxCgaJpZM4Ikmmx .

-- Scott Hurlbert Technical Architect 415-378-9908 scotthurlbert@hotmail.com AIM: scottahurlbert Skype: hurlbert GTalk: scottahurlbert@gmail.com Blogs:

websitewill commented 6 years ago

+1 to Scott

Sent via Morse code.

On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:13 PM, Scott Hurlbert notifications@github.com wrote:

Agreed - "WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful."

The purpose of this list was to gauge interest.

Other peopel's lack of interest or ability to "do it another way using none .NET libraries" in any way addresses the question that was asked and the reasons for our responses.

Also, the purpose of this was not to educate each other on SOA and all of the thousands of ways it can be achieved. The question was put out "Should WCF be added to .NET core."

If I'm trying to get a team to use WCF, the single biggest selling point I have is that it's part of the .NET framework. Why? Because I'm an experienced guy and most of the audience is managers, PMs, junior developers, developers, or junior architects. There are maybe 2 or 3 people on any given team that understand anything about SO. The reason they have guys "like us" on the team is to make quality recommendations and using what's right in front of you that is industrial strength, proven, and enterprise ready is a pretty good thing to suggest.

Can SO be done on .NET in other ways? No one here is asking that question (or at least that's not the purpose of this thread).

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:34 AM, ccicchitelli notifications@github.com wrote:

"everything you can do in node without a third party lib is exactly the same as what you can do in asp.net core without a lib."

That's exactly what I said. And since it's all third-party, I'm going to pick the one with the larger and more active community, with the larger corporate backing. Right now that's Node and JS, not .NET Core and C#.

WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful. It's just a matter of whether that will be forever tied to Windows and Azure, or be set free.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-355846393, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABo_EikmxOqk1khkj4YGC3I4UxBvMoJFks5tIRxCgaJpZM4Ikmmx .

-- Scott Hurlbert Technical Architect 415-378-9908 scotthurlbert@hotmail.com AIM: scottahurlbert Skype: hurlbert GTalk: scottahurlbert@gmail.com Blogs:

wasabii commented 6 years ago

The only reason I want WCF server side is to integrate with the large number of existing SOAP/HTTP services out there. The rest of WCF? There are numerous, and better, frameworks for that. But existing SOAP services, and the requirement to integrate with them, is huge.

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 4:46 PM websitewill notifications@github.com wrote:

+1 to Scott

Sent via Morse code.

On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:13 PM, Scott Hurlbert notifications@github.com wrote:

Agreed - "WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful."

The purpose of this list was to gauge interest.

Other peopel's lack of interest or ability to "do it another way using none .NET libraries" in any way addresses the question that was asked and the reasons for our responses.

Also, the purpose of this was not to educate each other on SOA and all of the thousands of ways it can be achieved. The question was put out "Should WCF be added to .NET core."

If I'm trying to get a team to use WCF, the single biggest selling point I have is that it's part of the .NET framework. Why? Because I'm an experienced guy and most of the audience is managers, PMs, junior developers, developers, or junior architects. There are maybe 2 or 3 people on any given team that understand anything about SO. The reason they have guys "like us" on the team is to make quality recommendations and using what's right in front of you that is industrial strength, proven, and enterprise ready is a pretty good thing to suggest.

Can SO be done on .NET in other ways? No one here is asking that question (or at least that's not the purpose of this thread).

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:34 AM, ccicchitelli notifications@github.com wrote:

"everything you can do in node without a third party lib is exactly the same as what you can do in asp.net core without a lib."

That's exactly what I said. And since it's all third-party, I'm going to pick the one with the larger and more active community, with the larger corporate backing. Right now that's Node and JS, not .NET Core and C#.

WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful. It's just a matter of whether that will be forever tied to Windows and Azure, or be set free.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-355846393, or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABo_EikmxOqk1khkj4YGC3I4UxBvMoJFks5tIRxCgaJpZM4Ikmmx

.

-- Scott Hurlbert Technical Architect 415-378-9908 <(415)%20378-9908> scotthurlbert@hotmail.com AIM: scottahurlbert Skype: hurlbert GTalk: scottahurlbert@gmail.com Blogs:

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-355859316, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAhjSomkpRNu8TdYb3nIrq3nRj1O3FkTks5tIUk5gaJpZM4Ikmmx .

forki commented 6 years ago

As written above you don't need WCF for SOAP.

Am 09.01.2018 05:56 schrieb "Jerome Haltom" notifications@github.com:

The only reason I want WCF server side is to integrate with the large number of existing SOAP/HTTP services out there. The rest of WCF? There are numerous, and better, frameworks for that. But existing SOAP services, and the requirement to integrate with them, is huge.

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 4:46 PM websitewill notifications@github.com wrote:

+1 to Scott

Sent via Morse code.

On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:13 PM, Scott Hurlbert notifications@github.com wrote:

Agreed - "WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful."

The purpose of this list was to gauge interest.

Other peopel's lack of interest or ability to "do it another way using none .NET libraries" in any way addresses the question that was asked and the reasons for our responses.

Also, the purpose of this was not to educate each other on SOA and all of the thousands of ways it can be achieved. The question was put out "Should WCF be added to .NET core."

If I'm trying to get a team to use WCF, the single biggest selling point I have is that it's part of the .NET framework. Why? Because I'm an experienced guy and most of the audience is managers, PMs, junior developers, developers, or junior architects. There are maybe 2 or 3 people on any given team that understand anything about SO. The reason they have guys "like us" on the team is to make quality recommendations and using what's right in front of you that is industrial strength, proven, and enterprise ready is a pretty good thing to suggest.

Can SO be done on .NET in other ways? No one here is asking that question (or at least that's not the purpose of this thread).

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:34 AM, ccicchitelli < notifications@github.com> wrote:

"everything you can do in node without a third party lib is exactly the same as what you can do in asp.net core without a lib."

That's exactly what I said. And since it's all third-party, I'm going to pick the one with the larger and more active community, with the larger corporate backing. Right now that's Node and JS, not .NET Core and C#.

WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful. It's just a matter of whether that will be forever tied to Windows and Azure, or be set free.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-355846393, or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABo_ EikmxOqk1khkj4YGC3I4UxBvMoJFks5tIRxCgaJpZM4Ikmmx

.

-- Scott Hurlbert Technical Architect 415-378-9908 <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> scotthurlbert@hotmail.com AIM: scottahurlbert Skype: hurlbert GTalk: scottahurlbert@gmail.com Blogs:

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-355859316, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ AAhjSomkpRNu8TdYb3nIrq3nRj1O3FkTks5tIUk5gaJpZM4Ikmmx .

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356180160, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADgNBzT_16mXuYAjtzSVCj2cA7HkJ0jks5tIvGTgaJpZM4Ikmmx .

wasabii commented 6 years ago

Helps, when you have more advanced services. Reliable sessions, transactions, etc. And MTOM.

On Jan 8, 2018 11:44 PM, "Steffen Forkmann" notifications@github.com wrote:

As written above you don't need WCF for SOAP.

Am 09.01.2018 05:56 schrieb "Jerome Haltom" notifications@github.com:

The only reason I want WCF server side is to integrate with the large number of existing SOAP/HTTP services out there. The rest of WCF? There are numerous, and better, frameworks for that. But existing SOAP services, and the requirement to integrate with them, is huge.

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 4:46 PM websitewill notifications@github.com wrote:

+1 to Scott

Sent via Morse code.

On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:13 PM, Scott Hurlbert <notifications@github.com

wrote:

Agreed - "WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful."

The purpose of this list was to gauge interest.

Other peopel's lack of interest or ability to "do it another way using none .NET libraries" in any way addresses the question that was asked and the reasons for our responses.

Also, the purpose of this was not to educate each other on SOA and all of the thousands of ways it can be achieved. The question was put out "Should WCF be added to .NET core."

If I'm trying to get a team to use WCF, the single biggest selling point I have is that it's part of the .NET framework. Why? Because I'm an experienced guy and most of the audience is managers, PMs, junior developers, developers, or junior architects. There are maybe 2 or 3 people on any given team that understand anything about SO. The reason they have guys "like us" on the team is to make quality recommendations and using what's right in front of you that is industrial strength, proven, and enterprise ready is a pretty good thing to suggest.

Can SO be done on .NET in other ways? No one here is asking that question (or at least that's not the purpose of this thread).

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:34 AM, ccicchitelli < notifications@github.com> wrote:

"everything you can do in node without a third party lib is exactly the same as what you can do in asp.net core without a lib."

That's exactly what I said. And since it's all third-party, I'm going to pick the one with the larger and more active community, with the larger corporate backing. Right now that's Node and JS, not .NET Core and C#.

WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful. It's just a matter of whether that will be forever tied to Windows and Azure, or be set free.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-355846393 , or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABo_ EikmxOqk1khkj4YGC3I4UxBvMoJFks5tIRxCgaJpZM4Ikmmx

.

-- Scott Hurlbert Technical Architect 415-378-9908 <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> scotthurlbert@hotmail.com AIM: scottahurlbert Skype: hurlbert GTalk: scottahurlbert@gmail.com Blogs:

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-355859316, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ AAhjSomkpRNu8TdYb3nIrq3nRj1O3FkTks5tIUk5gaJpZM4Ikmmx .

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356180160, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADgNBzT_ 16mXuYAjtzSVCj2cA7HkJ0jks5tIvGTgaJpZM4Ikmmx .

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356186584, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAhjSuBBh1Y7SEYkl6mSFi6EEyS6XcDzks5tIvysgaJpZM4Ikmmx .

jbogard commented 6 years ago

There are better ways to do those things now (though the first two I’d argue are detrimental to a SOA)

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:45 AM Jerome Haltom notifications@github.com wrote:

Helps, when you have more advanced services. Reliable sessions, transactions, etc. And MTOM.

On Jan 8, 2018 11:44 PM, "Steffen Forkmann" notifications@github.com wrote:

As written above you don't need WCF for SOAP.

Am 09.01.2018 05:56 schrieb "Jerome Haltom" notifications@github.com:

The only reason I want WCF server side is to integrate with the large number of existing SOAP/HTTP services out there. The rest of WCF? There are numerous, and better, frameworks for that. But existing SOAP services, and the requirement to integrate with them, is huge.

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 4:46 PM websitewill notifications@github.com wrote:

+1 to Scott

Sent via Morse code.

On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:13 PM, Scott Hurlbert < notifications@github.com

wrote:

Agreed - "WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful."

The purpose of this list was to gauge interest.

Other peopel's lack of interest or ability to "do it another way using none .NET libraries" in any way addresses the question that was asked and the reasons for our responses.

Also, the purpose of this was not to educate each other on SOA and all of the thousands of ways it can be achieved. The question was put out "Should WCF be added to .NET core."

If I'm trying to get a team to use WCF, the single biggest selling point I have is that it's part of the .NET framework. Why? Because I'm an experienced guy and most of the audience is managers, PMs, junior developers, developers, or junior architects. There are maybe 2 or 3 people on any given team that understand anything about SO. The reason they have guys "like us" on the team is to make quality recommendations and using what's right in front of you that is industrial strength, proven, and enterprise ready is a pretty good thing to suggest.

Can SO be done on .NET in other ways? No one here is asking that question (or at least that's not the purpose of this thread).

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:34 AM, ccicchitelli < notifications@github.com> wrote:

"everything you can do in node without a third party lib is exactly the same as what you can do in asp.net core without a lib."

That's exactly what I said. And since it's all third-party, I'm going to pick the one with the larger and more active community, with the larger corporate backing. Right now that's Node and JS, not .NET Core and C#.

WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful. It's just a matter of whether that will be forever tied to Windows and Azure, or be set free.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-355846393 , or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABo_ EikmxOqk1khkj4YGC3I4UxBvMoJFks5tIRxCgaJpZM4Ikmmx

.

-- Scott Hurlbert Technical Architect 415-378-9908 <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> scotthurlbert@hotmail.com AIM: scottahurlbert Skype: hurlbert GTalk: scottahurlbert@gmail.com Blogs:

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-355859316, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ AAhjSomkpRNu8TdYb3nIrq3nRj1O3FkTks5tIUk5gaJpZM4Ikmmx .

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356180160, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADgNBzT_ 16mXuYAjtzSVCj2cA7HkJ0jks5tIvGTgaJpZM4Ikmmx .

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356186584, or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAhjSuBBh1Y7SEYkl6mSFi6EEyS6XcDzks5tIvysgaJpZM4Ikmmx

.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356194891, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGYMhmv-wu7sRd4wGwY4EiqMxKuGUtFks5tIwr1gaJpZM4Ikmmx .

popcatalin81 commented 6 years ago

In regards to all the alternatives and possibilities discussed here, I just want to say:

There is nothing even comparable with Full framework WCF in terms of flexibility and interoperability

Now, are there better choices for SOA architectures? Yes ... and No. It all depends on how green is your field and what are you trying to build. Is REST better choice for an SOA architecture? No ... and Yes, but depends on what you are trying to build. Is an AMQP library the best choice? ... Ok, you're catching my drift ...

I don't think this discussion should be about what's best for an SOA architecture (which lacks requirements or description, by the way, and everyone imagines something different) ...but about the fact that .Net Core lacks a flexible and interoperable communication framework that would allow it to be used in "not so green fields" or "gradual migrations" completely locking a set of potential projects out (Especially large enterprise migration projects suffer here).

Some final thoughts:

But all of the above don't mean WCF should be discarded, quite the contrary, WCF is needed to solve the above issues for it's users.

scotthurlbert commented 6 years ago

I keep saying this on this list, just because you don't want to use WCF is not the same as our team not needing it.

@bogard's comment that there are ways without mentioning what they are is like that joke in the movie King Pin. In the movie they keep saying, "Well you know what the Bible says about that?" After a pause they say, "It's against it," or "It's for it." They don't cite a passage, just the belief in their opinion.

I don't think this list in the right place to have a SOA discussion, but to say there are "better ways" and then mention nothing is bit disingenuous. And, I've been consistent in pointing out that, just because you don't need WCF or think solution Xyz is "better" doesn't mean that it would fit my specifications. That goes double for things un-cited.

You know what the Bible says about mentioning how awesome something is without saying what is is, don't you? It's against it.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:00 AM, Jimmy Bogard notifications@github.com wrote:

There are better ways to do those things now (though the first two I’d argue are detrimental to a SOA)

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:45 AM Jerome Haltom notifications@github.com wrote:

Helps, when you have more advanced services. Reliable sessions, transactions, etc. And MTOM.

On Jan 8, 2018 11:44 PM, "Steffen Forkmann" notifications@github.com wrote:

As written above you don't need WCF for SOAP.

Am 09.01.2018 05:56 schrieb "Jerome Haltom" <notifications@github.com :

The only reason I want WCF server side is to integrate with the large number of existing SOAP/HTTP services out there. The rest of WCF? There are numerous, and better, frameworks for that. But existing SOAP services, and the requirement to integrate with them, is huge.

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 4:46 PM websitewill <notifications@github.com

wrote:

+1 to Scott

Sent via Morse code.

On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:13 PM, Scott Hurlbert < notifications@github.com

wrote:

Agreed - "WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful."

The purpose of this list was to gauge interest.

Other peopel's lack of interest or ability to "do it another way using none .NET libraries" in any way addresses the question that was asked and the reasons for our responses.

Also, the purpose of this was not to educate each other on SOA and all of the thousands of ways it can be achieved. The question was put out "Should WCF be added to .NET core."

If I'm trying to get a team to use WCF, the single biggest selling point I have is that it's part of the .NET framework. Why? Because I'm an experienced guy and most of the audience is managers, PMs, junior developers, developers, or junior architects. There are maybe 2 or 3 people on any given team that understand anything about SO. The reason they have guys "like us" on the team is to make quality recommendations and using what's right in front of you that is industrial strength, proven, and enterprise ready is a pretty good thing to suggest.

Can SO be done on .NET in other ways? No one here is asking that question (or at least that's not the purpose of this thread).

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:34 AM, ccicchitelli < notifications@github.com> wrote:

"everything you can do in node without a third party lib is exactly the same as what you can do in asp.net core without a lib."

That's exactly what I said. And since it's all third-party, I'm going to pick the one with the larger and more active community, with the larger corporate backing. Right now that's Node and JS, not .NET Core and C#.

WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful. It's just a matter of whether that will be forever tied to Windows and Azure, or be set free.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-355846393 , or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABo_ EikmxOqk1khkj4YGC3I4UxBvMoJFks5tIRxCgaJpZM4Ikmmx

.

-- Scott Hurlbert Technical Architect 415-378-9908 <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> scotthurlbert@hotmail.com AIM: scottahurlbert Skype: hurlbert GTalk: scottahurlbert@gmail.com Blogs:

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-355859316 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ AAhjSomkpRNu8TdYb3nIrq3nRj1O3FkTks5tIUk5gaJpZM4Ikmmx .

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356180160, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADgNBzT_ 16mXuYAjtzSVCj2cA7HkJ0jks5tIvGTgaJpZM4Ikmmx .

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356186584, or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ AAhjSuBBh1Y7SEYkl6mSFi6EEyS6XcDzks5tIvysgaJpZM4Ikmmx

.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356194891, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGYMhmv- wu7sRd4wGwY4EiqMxKuGUtFks5tIwr1gaJpZM4Ikmmx

.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356291599, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABo_ErRkJ8-RGkcDRZAo1f9RFz-Cfvddks5tI3EOgaJpZM4Ikmmx .

-- Scott Hurlbert Technical Architect 415-378-9908 scotthurlbert@hotmail.com AIM: scottahurlbert Skype: hurlbert GTalk: scottahurlbert@gmail.com Blogs:

jbogard commented 6 years ago

Honestly before this thread I thought folks had generally moved on. In terms of better replacements, what parts of WCF?

For HTTP web services, there's a better .NET Core version of it - ASP.NET Core. RPC? gRPC (though be super careful, RPC can break autonomy of services). WS-*? Most of those were bad ideas (transactions, reliable messaging etc.) and didn't actually encourage autonomy. Proxy classes? Stopped using them, even inside WCF because it encouraged RPC-style services. Used service channels directly instead.

TCP? System.Net.Sockets MSMQ? Not on .NET Core since it's not xplat. But you can do Azure Service Bus or RabbitMQ, open protocols with AMQP and client libraries that actually match the protocols and brokers. IPC w/ named pipes? System.IO.Pipes (or if you want, you can always do ZeroMQ if that floats your boat)

I do have banking clients that still use expensive ESBs they purchased with a golf course handshake back in 2004, so I can empathize with the legacy interop story. I've just attacked this by creating a shim between their stuff and mine.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Scott Hurlbert notifications@github.com wrote:

I keep saying this on this list, just because you don't want to use WCF is not the same as our team not needing it.

@bogard's comment that there are ways without mentioning what they are is like that joke in the movie King Pin. In the movie they keep saying, "Well you know what the Bible says about that?" After a pause they say, "It's against it," or "It's for it." They don't cite a passage, just the belief in their opinion.

I don't think this list in the right place to have a SOA discussion, but to say there are "better ways" and then mention nothing is bit disingenuous. And, I've been consistent in pointing out that, just because you don't need WCF or think solution Xyz is "better" doesn't mean that it would fit my specifications. That goes double for things un-cited.

You know what the Bible says about mentioning how awesome something is without saying what is is, don't you? It's against it.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:00 AM, Jimmy Bogard notifications@github.com wrote:

There are better ways to do those things now (though the first two I’d argue are detrimental to a SOA)

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:45 AM Jerome Haltom notifications@github.com wrote:

Helps, when you have more advanced services. Reliable sessions, transactions, etc. And MTOM.

On Jan 8, 2018 11:44 PM, "Steffen Forkmann" notifications@github.com wrote:

As written above you don't need WCF for SOAP.

Am 09.01.2018 05:56 schrieb "Jerome Haltom" < notifications@github.com :

The only reason I want WCF server side is to integrate with the large number of existing SOAP/HTTP services out there. The rest of WCF? There are numerous, and better, frameworks for that. But existing SOAP services, and the requirement to integrate with them, is huge.

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 4:46 PM websitewill < notifications@github.com

wrote:

+1 to Scott

Sent via Morse code.

On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:13 PM, Scott Hurlbert < notifications@github.com

wrote:

Agreed - "WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful."

The purpose of this list was to gauge interest.

Other peopel's lack of interest or ability to "do it another way using none .NET libraries" in any way addresses the question that was asked and the reasons for our responses.

Also, the purpose of this was not to educate each other on SOA and all of the thousands of ways it can be achieved. The question was put out "Should WCF be added to .NET core."

If I'm trying to get a team to use WCF, the single biggest selling point I have is that it's part of the .NET framework. Why? Because I'm an experienced guy and most of the audience is managers, PMs, junior developers, developers, or junior architects. There are maybe 2 or 3 people on any given team that understand anything about SO. The reason they have guys "like us" on the team is to make quality recommendations and using what's right in front of you that is industrial strength, proven, and enterprise ready is a pretty good thing to suggest.

Can SO be done on .NET in other ways? No one here is asking that question (or at least that's not the purpose of this thread).

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:34 AM, ccicchitelli < notifications@github.com> wrote:

"everything you can do in node without a third party lib is exactly the same as what you can do in asp.net core without a lib."

That's exactly what I said. And since it's all third-party, I'm going to pick the one with the larger and more active community, with the larger corporate backing. Right now that's Node and JS, not .NET Core and C#.

WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful. It's just a matter of whether that will be forever tied to Windows and Azure, or be set free.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-355846393 , or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABo_ EikmxOqk1khkj4YGC3I4UxBvMoJFks5tIRxCgaJpZM4Ikmmx

.

-- Scott Hurlbert Technical Architect 415-378-9908 <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> scotthurlbert@hotmail.com AIM: scottahurlbert Skype: hurlbert GTalk: scottahurlbert@gmail.com Blogs:

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment- 355859316 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ AAhjSomkpRNu8TdYb3nIrq3nRj1O3FkTks5tIUk5gaJpZM4Ikmmx .

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356180160 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADgNBzT_ 16mXuYAjtzSVCj2cA7HkJ0jks5tIvGTgaJpZM4Ikmmx .

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356186584, or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ AAhjSuBBh1Y7SEYkl6mSFi6EEyS6XcDzks5tIvysgaJpZM4Ikmmx

.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356194891, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGYMhmv- wu7sRd4wGwY4EiqMxKuGUtFks5tIwr1gaJpZM4Ikmmx

.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356291599, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABo_ErRkJ8- RGkcDRZAo1f9RFz-Cfvddks5tI3EOgaJpZM4Ikmmx .

-- Scott Hurlbert Technical Architect 415-378-9908 <(415)%20378-9908> scotthurlbert@hotmail.com AIM: scottahurlbert Skype: hurlbert GTalk: scottahurlbert@gmail.com Blogs:

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356316411, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGYMlOEarlLSbG3Ivxj6oam53cjxayIks5tI4U0gaJpZM4Ikmmx .

websitewill commented 6 years ago

Jimmy: "Honestly before this thread I thought folks had generally moved on" Not at all - not even a remote possibility in the near (5-10 year) future for many enterprises. In fact, from what I see, adoption of WCF has increased - just not using it for web services - so it's not as in-your-face.

Many enterprise-scale apps use WCF behind the scenes and would benefit from hosting on cheaper metal - but they can't. The cost to rewrite those apps (systems) would be huge - not only in actual manpower lost, but in opportunity loss while doing an entire rewrite. Also: Security costs - we know how to secure WCF, and using WCF for all services/layers provides the same security story throughout. Switching to a more hybrid approach would mean figuring out how to secure, tune, manage, etc a BUNCH of different tools - when one tool does all we need, and does it very well.

The problem is that almost everyone fixates on using WCF for web services which is, in reality, is only a very small percentage of how it is actually used. This is because, if you Google for WCF, that's pretty much all you find in the "how to" sections. WCF is a communication FRAMEWORK (useful across the entire applications stack from client, business, resource access, etc). It's NOT just about exposing web services to clients - which is what most people who don't use it (and therefore have ZERO actual skin in the game) are aware of. If that's all it was, it would be called something like MSWSF (Microsoft Web Services Framework). The "Communication Framework" was intentional.

Will

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Jimmy Bogard notifications@github.com wrote:

Honestly before this thread I thought folks had generally moved on. In terms of better replacements, what parts of WCF?

For HTTP web services, there's a better .NET Core version of it - ASP.NET Core. RPC? gRPC (though be super careful, RPC can break autonomy of services). WS-*? Most of those were bad ideas (transactions, reliable messaging etc.) and didn't actually encourage autonomy. Proxy classes? Stopped using them, even inside WCF because it encouraged RPC-style services. Used service channels directly instead.

TCP? System.Net.Sockets MSMQ? Not on .NET Core since it's not xplat. But you can do Azure Service Bus or RabbitMQ, open protocols with AMQP and client libraries that actually match the protocols and brokers. IPC w/ named pipes? System.IO.Pipes (or if you want, you can always do ZeroMQ if that floats your boat)

I do have banking clients that still use expensive ESBs they purchased with a golf course handshake back in 2004, so I can empathize with the legacy interop story. I've just attacked this by creating a shim between their stuff and mine.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Scott Hurlbert notifications@github.com wrote:

I keep saying this on this list, just because you don't want to use WCF is not the same as our team not needing it.

@bogard's comment that there are ways without mentioning what they are is like that joke in the movie King Pin. In the movie they keep saying, "Well you know what the Bible says about that?" After a pause they say, "It's against it," or "It's for it." They don't cite a passage, just the belief in their opinion.

I don't think this list in the right place to have a SOA discussion, but to say there are "better ways" and then mention nothing is bit disingenuous. And, I've been consistent in pointing out that, just because you don't need WCF or think solution Xyz is "better" doesn't mean that it would fit my specifications. That goes double for things un-cited.

You know what the Bible says about mentioning how awesome something is without saying what is is, don't you? It's against it.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:00 AM, Jimmy Bogard notifications@github.com wrote:

There are better ways to do those things now (though the first two I’d argue are detrimental to a SOA)

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:45 AM Jerome Haltom < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Helps, when you have more advanced services. Reliable sessions, transactions, etc. And MTOM.

On Jan 8, 2018 11:44 PM, "Steffen Forkmann" < notifications@github.com> wrote:

As written above you don't need WCF for SOAP.

Am 09.01.2018 05:56 schrieb "Jerome Haltom" < notifications@github.com :

The only reason I want WCF server side is to integrate with the large number of existing SOAP/HTTP services out there. The rest of WCF? There are numerous, and better, frameworks for that. But existing SOAP services, and the requirement to integrate with them, is huge.

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 4:46 PM websitewill < notifications@github.com

wrote:

+1 to Scott

Sent via Morse code.

On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:13 PM, Scott Hurlbert < notifications@github.com

wrote:

Agreed - "WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful."

The purpose of this list was to gauge interest.

Other peopel's lack of interest or ability to "do it another way using none .NET libraries" in any way addresses the question that was asked and the reasons for our responses.

Also, the purpose of this was not to educate each other on SOA and all of the thousands of ways it can be achieved. The question was put out "Should WCF be added to .NET core."

If I'm trying to get a team to use WCF, the single biggest selling point I have is that it's part of the .NET framework. Why? Because I'm an experienced guy and most of the audience is managers, PMs, junior developers, developers, or junior architects. There are maybe 2 or 3 people on any given team that understand anything about SO. The reason they have guys "like us" on the team is to make quality recommendations and using what's right in front of you that is industrial strength, proven, and enterprise ready is a pretty good thing to suggest.

Can SO be done on .NET in other ways? No one here is asking that question (or at least that's not the purpose of this thread).

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:34 AM, ccicchitelli < notifications@github.com> wrote:

"everything you can do in node without a third party lib is exactly the same as what you can do in asp.net core without a lib."

That's exactly what I said. And since it's all third-party, I'm going to pick the one with the larger and more active community, with the larger corporate backing. Right now that's Node and JS, not .NET Core and C#.

WCF enables best-in-class SOA. It's incredibly powerful. It's just a matter of whether that will be forever tied to Windows and Azure, or be set free.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-355846393 , or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABo_ EikmxOqk1khkj4YGC3I4UxBvMoJFks5tIRxCgaJpZM4Ikmmx

.

-- Scott Hurlbert Technical Architect 415-378-9908 <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> scotthurlbert@hotmail.com AIM: scottahurlbert Skype: hurlbert GTalk: scottahurlbert@gmail.com Blogs:

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment- 355859316 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ AAhjSomkpRNu8TdYb3nIrq3nRj1O3FkTks5tIUk5gaJpZM4Ikmmx .

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment- 356180160 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADgNBzT_ 16mXuYAjtzSVCj2cA7HkJ0jks5tIvGTgaJpZM4Ikmmx .

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356186584 , or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ AAhjSuBBh1Y7SEYkl6mSFi6EEyS6XcDzks5tIvysgaJpZM4Ikmmx

.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356194891, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGYMhmv- wu7sRd4wGwY4EiqMxKuGUtFks5tIwr1gaJpZM4Ikmmx

.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356291599, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABo_ErRkJ8- RGkcDRZAo1f9RFz-Cfvddks5tI3EOgaJpZM4Ikmmx .

-- Scott Hurlbert Technical Architect 415-378-9908 <(415)%20378-9908> <(415)%20378-9908> scotthurlbert@hotmail.com AIM: scottahurlbert Skype: hurlbert GTalk: scottahurlbert@gmail.com Blogs:

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356316411, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ AAGYMlOEarlLSbG3Ivxj6oam53cjxayIks5tI4U0gaJpZM4Ikmmx .

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356323900, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASs0geWLUaOwy60fcN8vpjNM7poK2yBHks5tI4regaJpZM4Ikmmx .

-- Will Comeaux websitewill@gmail.com LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pub/wilmer-comeaux/43/14/404?trk=shareTw Twitter https://twitter.com/wilmercomeaux Facebook http://www.facebook.com/WilmerComeaux

shamusfuller commented 6 years ago

Yes, because WCF is and has always been all about web services!

RPC?! There's no RPC in WCF. It is stackless, which is a key aspect that makes it superior in every respect to anything else available that you know about.

TCP?! Um, so, it seems you do not understand that WCF features location transparency. I do not have to write pipe code, or tcp code, or msmq code, or amqp code, or service bus code. I write my code. Then, I can change the binding to use whatever I want, without having to change my code. You presume to know of some other technology that can do that? Please share.

Of the legitimate needs listed here, reliability, transactions, throttling, bindings, etc, etc, etc you will not find any comparable replacement, none, because it does not exist. So, for those of us that actually need those features we have not moved on. Some of us are able to move on to a true service oriented platform (Service Fabric) but for infrastructure, we still very much need WCF.

It is clear that many that have commented here have absolutely no idea what WCF is or what it is for or how many of us use it. I'm not sure it's fair for those voices to remain in the conversation. If you think that WCF is all about web services and there's better stuff out there then you really do not have any idea what some of us are talking about and your time might be better spent in another conversation. I know my time here would be better spent having an actual conversation about the subject with actual practitioners who actually have experience with these systems.

miguelcastro67 commented 6 years ago

The last two comments here hit the nail on the head and I couldn't agree more. It is called "Communication Foundation" for a reason. "Moved on"? Putting that out there is essentially telling every customer currently using WCF (in whatever capacity) that they have always been doing it wrong and they should get with the program - very unfair thing to say. It seems to me that a common pattern in the certain parts of the Microsoft community is that the minute there is another way of doing something, the previous way is now labeled wrong or idiotic and therefore dead. if it ain't what the cool kids are using then you must be a moron. Call me old-school, but for my customers it's about solving a problem and providing value. WCF did and does that very well. I agree with Will. It's way more than doing web services. But the fact that it can do them too is still great. Why go through a list of ten products that can each offer an alternative to a single feature of WCF when I know I can do it using WCF? I use WCF in so many other capacities and in conjunction with Web API and ASP Core. I've set up solutions using WCF's discovery and content-based routing, and that shit rocks. There isn't anything else out there that can do it as well or as easily.

forki commented 6 years ago

Tbf it's not the .NET Community that moved on. It's the rest of the industry. And it's hard to justify SOA things if that means .NET to .NET communication only. But of course you want to maintain legacy stuff - and you can. Full framework won't go away. We just got a new version.

thefringeninja commented 6 years ago

The cost to rewrite those apps (systems) would be huge - not only in actual manpower lost, but in opportunity loss while doing an entire rewrite.

Hate to be that guy, but how exactly is your business supposed to respond to evolving market conditions if this is the case? Is your database access code coupled to WCF in some way?

websitewill commented 6 years ago

Steffen: Tbf, where is your data to back that claim up?

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Steffen Forkmann notifications@github.com wrote:

Tbf it's not the .NET Community that moved on. It's the rest of the industry. And it's hard to justify SOA things if that means .NET to .NET communication only. But of course you want to maintain legacy stuff - and you can. Full framework won't go away. We just got a new version.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356341481, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASs0gWCm0MiWClfew2F3oF2hyrD76prEks5tI5c5gaJpZM4Ikmmx .

-- Will Comeaux websitewill@gmail.com LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pub/wilmer-comeaux/43/14/404?trk=shareTw Twitter https://twitter.com/wilmercomeaux Facebook http://www.facebook.com/WilmerComeaux

forki commented 6 years ago

What claim? How many WCF implementations outside .NET do you know?

ccicchitelli commented 6 years ago

For those of us who have spent any time in the enterprise it's a bit laughable to see this subject treated so flippantly by some...

Also, I don't think the Microsoft community moved on. But new people joined the community.

damianh commented 6 years ago

SOAP is Not Dead – It’s Undead, a Zombie in the Enterprise

mtiymzi2njy0mdk2mtu0mje0

Suriman commented 6 years ago

Just one detail, if WCF is dead, why is the issue that has the most comments of all? 230 versus 33, which is the next. Almost 10 times

WCF is something that should be implemented in .NET Core.

websitewill commented 6 years ago

Nope, my data access code is 100% data access. I don't have to write ANYTHING related to queuing, transactions (across the entire stack across processes and threads), security, concurrency, reliability, *ability, etc. Does your resource access have any of those smells? My data access is exposed as a SERVICE - not a web service, but a service, with all the benefits thereof. Coupling is ALL contracts, all the time - nothing else. It's what a SOA does, and you need good plumbing behind a SOA, otherwise, your dev teams have to be kung-fu masters in a bunch of arbitrary (and constantly changing) environments.

By the way, "latest and greatest" aren't what enterprises are interested in. Getting stuff done and producing features/products is.

It is precisely my use of WCF that allows my ecosystems to thrive and iterate. Basically look at WCF as .NET on steroids, NOT just web services.

And again, IF you aren't using WCF, then why are you here? This thread is about people who want to get a solid, streamlined, full-featured, singular communication stack into .NET Core so we can host on cheaper metal and smaller devices, NOT about whatever kung-fu you require your teams to perform.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:44 AM, João Bragança notifications@github.com wrote:

The cost to rewrite those apps (systems) would be huge - not only in actual manpower lost, but in opportunity loss while doing an entire rewrite.

Hate to be that guy, but how exactly is your business supposed to respond to evolving market conditions if this is the case? Is your database access code coupled to WCF in some way?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356341779, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASs0gXXZoPmFKKS8U9PC0GTHvqsaTeiGks5tI5d0gaJpZM4Ikmmx .

-- Will Comeaux websitewill@gmail.com LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pub/wilmer-comeaux/43/14/404?trk=shareTw Twitter https://twitter.com/wilmercomeaux Facebook http://www.facebook.com/WilmerComeaux

damianh commented 6 years ago

It not dead, it's undead.

This issue is troll bait in fairness.

WCF is not something that should be implemented in .NET Core.

ccicchitelli commented 6 years ago

"Then, I can change the binding to use whatever I want, without having to change my code. You presume to know of some other technology that can do that? Please share."

The fact that this doesn't exist elsewhere renders the argument about WCF being outdated moot IMHO. To say nothing of all the other benefits of WCF...

forki commented 6 years ago

@surinam because this ALWAYS happens in such threads. People demanding a feature and if they don't get it people discuss if things are dead or not. But nobody actually offers their help - it's "Microsoft needs to do it", "people who don't need it, don't understand it", "you did not work in the enterprise like me" and all that stuff.

phillip-haydon commented 6 years ago

People seem to be throwing the word ‘enterprise’ around like it helps justify their need for WCF.

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 Jan 2018, at 12:54 AM, Suriman notifications@github.com wrote:

Just one detail, if WCF is dead, why is the issue that has the most comments of all? 230 versus 33, which is the next. Almost 10 times

WCF is something that should be implemented in .NET Core.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

ccicchitelli commented 6 years ago

"Basically look at WCF as .NET on steroids, NOT just web services."

This point seems lost on many.

damianh commented 6 years ago

WCF is not something that should be implemented in .NET Core.

I would like to add, I don't really care. I just use WCF as a marker to avoid an org / project / product etc :)

ccicchitelli commented 6 years ago

"People seem to be throwing the word ‘enterprise’ around like it helps justify their need for WCF."

If the enterprise already has a WCF SOA, then it does...

damianh commented 6 years ago

people discuss if things are dead or not.

Great thing about microsoft is they virtually never declare anything actually dead. They just move on, stop doing stuff and stop talking about stuff and eventually everyone "gets the message that wasn't directly said".

Except silverlight. They declared that one,.

... which became the basis of coreclr! undead :)

shamusfuller commented 6 years ago

full-featured, singular communication stack into .NET Core so we can host on cheaper metal and smaller devices,

@websitewill : and I will add to that I would like greater reach! I was very disappointed when I sat down years ago to write my first store app, and found out it could not work with my infrastructure, no WCF in it. Same goes for core, UWP, all of it. I can't use any of that. The whole point of those technologies being in service would be to give me the ability to extend my infrastructure across platforms, have other types of clients orchestrated by the infrastructure. This would be huge!

websitewill commented 6 years ago

This says much more about you than it does anything about any technology.

We are not here to educate those who insist upon remaining ignorant of good tools. You can continue to drive screws with your hammer if you choose. Move along.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Damian Hickey notifications@github.com wrote:

WCF is not something that should be implemented in .NET Core.

I would like to add, I don't really care. I just use WCF as a marker to avoid an org / project / product etc :)

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356346597, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASs0gWUt8yzrIytSPfPKRZkBUzkrKW17ks5tI5r5gaJpZM4Ikmmx .

-- Will Comeaux websitewill@gmail.com LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pub/wilmer-comeaux/43/14/404?trk=shareTw Twitter https://twitter.com/wilmercomeaux Facebook http://www.facebook.com/WilmerComeaux

websitewill commented 6 years ago

Anyone who thinks Microsoft has "moved on" obviously hasn't talked with any of the teams building Azure - leveraging LOTS of WCF behind it. Hrmmmm.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Damian Hickey notifications@github.com wrote:

people discuss if things are dead or not.

Great thing about microsoft is they virtually never declare anything actually dead. They just move on, stop doing stuff and stop talking about stuff and eventually everyone "gets the message that wasn't directly said".

Except silverlight. They declared that one,.

... which became the basis of coreclr! undead :)

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356347545, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASs0ge34XZpaxa9j2zJiEjpee8z4DQ7-ks5tI5uogaJpZM4Ikmmx .

-- Will Comeaux websitewill@gmail.com LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pub/wilmer-comeaux/43/14/404?trk=shareTw Twitter https://twitter.com/wilmercomeaux Facebook http://www.facebook.com/WilmerComeaux

ccicchitelli commented 6 years ago

"For HTTP web services, there's a better .NET Core version of it - ASP.NET Core. RPC? gRPC (though be super careful, RPC can break autonomy of services). WS-*? Most of those were bad ideas (transactions, reliable messaging etc.) and didn't actually encourage autonomy. Proxy classes? Stopped using them, even inside WCF because it encouraged RPC-style services. Used service channels directly instead.

TCP? System.Net.Sockets MSMQ? Not on .NET Core since it's not xplat. But you can do Azure Service Bus or RabbitMQ, open protocols with AMQP and client libraries that actually match the protocols and brokers. IPC w/ named pipes? System.IO.Pipes (or if you want, you can always do ZeroMQ if that floats your boat)"

To me this reply is equal parts helpful and ridiculous. It's helpful because those things do what you say. It's ridiculous because it ignores that you call do all of them in WCF, WITHOUT CODE CHANGES. Want to offer a method via REST and IPC? Add a binding.

ccicchitelli commented 6 years ago

Damianh ad hominem attacks aren't appreciated.

websitewill commented 6 years ago

And my lack of any public repositories means, what, exactly? That I work for people who choose to not give away their code? That I don't work on many open-source projects?

Kudos on your evidence of... What, exactly? :)

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Damian Hickey notifications@github.com wrote:

Sure thing @websitewill https://github.com/websitewill

[image: image] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/57436/34733184-c5d451e6-f567-11e7-95fa-5e6139c5557a.png

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356348769, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASs0gWhNbF0dAit_tCtrg0GPJHyhCS9Vks5tI5yVgaJpZM4Ikmmx .

-- Will Comeaux websitewill@gmail.com LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pub/wilmer-comeaux/43/14/404?trk=shareTw Twitter https://twitter.com/wilmercomeaux Facebook http://www.facebook.com/WilmerComeaux

blowdart commented 6 years ago

Let's stop with commenting on people in the thread (and that includes the finger pointing that X is old and you need to move to Y) before I lock the issue because it has descended into trolling and flaming.

sapiens commented 6 years ago

I remember reading some 2-3 years ago some MS document where the recommended framework to use for new web projects was WebAPi or Asp.Net MVC. WCF was mentioned in some legacy context. Personally, I think WCF does too much for its own good. Let me choose what I need. Allow me to switch easily some component for another in my app.

ccicchitelli commented 6 years ago

Web API is for http services. This is not comparable in any meaningful way to the full WCF.

websitewill commented 6 years ago

For exposing service outside the fire, yes, of course. But gain, that's a very small part of the concern WCF is used for. IMO, I don't even use WCF for that part because yes, Web API (or now just MVC).

That's focusing on only one tiny thing, which is the problem with this thread as that's pretty much what most of the population knows about WCF, which is a shame.

That's like saying .NET is only about int and string.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Mike Mogosanu notifications@github.com wrote:

I remember reading some 2-3 years ago some MS document where the recommended framework to use for new web projects was WebAPi or Asp.Net MVC. WCF was mentioned in some legacy context.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dotnet/wcf/issues/1200#issuecomment-356351087, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASs0ga3QVfGw8KiP9lBb0ZvmSJ9jXu55ks5tI557gaJpZM4Ikmmx .

-- Will Comeaux websitewill@gmail.com LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pub/wilmer-comeaux/43/14/404?trk=shareTw Twitter https://twitter.com/wilmercomeaux Facebook http://www.facebook.com/WilmerComeaux