I have posted this same question in the msdn forums, but nothing yet ..
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/wcf/thread/60cf36d1-c11a-4d8a-9446-f1d299db1222
I'm working on a project that is an MVC app that will be sourced data via a WCF service that may or may not be getting data via EF, but will definitely be using Stored Procedures..
The MVC app will maintain state in the session, and the entity-tracking portion of this state would preferably function much like the RIA Services DomainContext. Whether or not this context encapsulates saves and changesets is not really all that important, but how entities are loaded into the context and relate to one another (navigation properties) are.
Question 1: Is there such a pattern/solution in existence?
Question 2: Should the MVC and WCF layers share the same DTOs/Entities via a class library? (thereby maintaining state-awareness, navigation properties, etc on both ends of the pipe?)
Question 3: Does using WCF Data Services help solve these problems?
Question 4: Is this all misguided and is there a better approach?
Pretty basic stuff here..
The solution is use a WCF Data Service, and in the client add a Service Reference pointing to it. The client-side proxy will include a proxy and the context classes I was looking for, similar to RIA. If you're accustomed to RIA, there will be some differences and caveats, but by and large it's easy to work through and provides a client-side proxy to your server-side ObjectContext (or whatever repository you expose through the DataService)
Related
I'm new to MVVM. Currently I'm developing a WPF project in C# that will have a SQl Server backend and I'll be using a standard WCF service to communicate with it. All the tutorials I've seen on MVVM thus far always seem to use some static data repository such as an xml file for their backend. I haven't yet seen implemenations using a database and a data access layer, so I'm confused as to where my WCF service fits in. The service has all data objects defined in it, so does the service itself then become the model? In addition, how do I go about including the service in the ViewModel so that the designer doesn't throw an error stating that it cannot create an instance f the service class? Any help here would be greatly appreciated as I find it strange that so many tutorials on this subject omit the most prctical implementation for a line-of-business application.
PS I would like to steer clear of WCF RIA services and Silverlight as the Silverlight's lack of support for commands makes the book I'm following (Pro WPF and Silverlight MVVM Effective Application Development with Model-View-ViewModel) difficult to understand.
OK, I'll try to get you up to speed ...
First, I do recognize the question about the model and the object model exposed with WCF. Are they the same? Well, I would like to make that assumption currently, for sake of simplicity. So then we do not need the model part of MVVM on the client side? Depends ...
The ViewModel is in the driving seat. We let it create the client proxy to your WCF service. The objects used in the request and returned as result makes your model. Anything you want to cache on the client side or is not directly bindable with the UI will be put in properties in your model container class. Generate bindable properties from these model properties for consumption in your UI. Every else will just be direct properties in your view model.
About WCF and the data access layer, there are a few important thing to recognize. First of all, you will need to have a seperation between you logical (information) model and your physical (database) model. One reason is to abstract your database technology away from your application. Another to allow small deviations between your application / domain logic and your physical implementation. Make sure your (entity) model classes are generic enough to support changes in your UI without having to modify the complete application stack for every UI change.
It is hard to talk about this matter without a clear example, so to wrap up I would like to invite you to look at http://aviadezra.blogspot.com/2010/10/silverlight-mvvm-odata-wcf-data.html. I know, it IS using WCF data services and SilverLight. Don't be mad at me directly for directing to this sample and give me the thumb down. It is just such a damn good example of what you want to achieve and what to introduce and what to think about setting up such an application. Just replace Silverlight by WPF and Data Services by regular typed data contracts and the rest of the story will help to get your thoughts clear.
Hope it helps you in your quest!
I have an architectural question about EF and WCF.
We are developing a three-tier application using Entity Framework (with an Oracle database), and a GUI based on WPF. The GUI communicates with the server through WCF.
Our data model is quite complex (more than a hundred tables), with lots of relations. We are currently using the default EF code generation template, and we are having a lot of trouble with tracking the state of our entities.
The user interfaces on the client are also fairly complex, sometimes an object graph with more than 50 objects are sent down to a single user interface, with several layers of aggregation between the entities. It is an important goal to be able to easily decide in the BLL layer, which of the objects have been modified on the client, and which objects have been newly created.
What would be the clearest approach to manage entities and entity states between the two layers? Self tracking entities? What are the most common pitfalls in this scenario?
Could those who have used STEs in a real production environment tell their experiences?
STEs are supposed to solve this scenario but they are not silver bullet. I have never used them in real project (I don't like them) but I spent some time playing with them. The main pitfalls I found are:
Coupling your data layer with your client application - you must share entity assembly between projects (it also means it is .NET only solution but it should not be a problem in your case)
Large data transfers - you pass 50 entities to clients, client change single entity and you will pass 50 entities back. It will require some fighting with STEs to avoid passing unnecessary data
Unnecessary updates to database - normally when EF works with attached entities it track changes on property level but with STEs it track changes on entity level. So if user modify single property in entity with 100 properties it will generate update with setting all of them. It will require modifying template and adding property level change tracking to avoid this.
Client application should use STEs directly (binding STEs to UI) to get most of its self tracking ability. Otherwise you will have to implement code which will move data from UI back to self tracking entity and modify its state.
They are not proxied = they don't support lazy loading (in case of WCF service it is good behavior)
I described today the way to solve this without STEs. There is also related question about tracking over web services (check #Richard's answer and provided links).
We have developed a layered application with STE's. A user interface layer with ASP.NET and ModelViewPresenter, a business layer, a WCF service layer and the data layer with Entity Framework.
When I first read about STE's the documentation said that they are easier then using custom DTO's. They should be the 'quick and easy way' and that only on really big projects you should use hand written DTO's.
But we've run in a lot of problems using STE's. One of the main problems is that if your entities come from multiple service calls (for example in a master detail view) and so from different contexts you will run into problems when composing the graphs on the server and trying to save them. So our server function still have to check manually which data has changed and then recompose the object graph on the server. A lot has been written about this topic but it's still not easy to fix.
Another problem we ran into was that the STE's wouldn't work without WCF. The change tracking is activated when the entities are serialized. We've originally designed an architecture where WCF could be disabled and the service calls would just be in process (this was a requirement for our unit tests, which would run a lot faster without wcf and be easier to setup). It turned out that STE's are not the right choice for this.
I've also noticed that developers sometimes included a lot of data in their query and just send it to the client instead of really thinking about which data they needed.
After this project we've decided to use custom DTO's with automapper from server to client and use the POCO template in our data layer in a new project.
So since you already state that your project is big I would opt for custom DTO's and service functions that are a specifically created for one goal instead of 'Update(Person person)' functions that send a lot of data
Hope this helps :)
I really like OData (WCF Data Services). In past projects I have coded up so many Web-Services just to allow different ways to read my data.
OData gives great flexibility for the clients to have the data as they need it.
However, in a discussion today, a co-worker pointed out that how we are doing OData is little more than giving the client application a connection to the database.
Here is how we are setting up our WCF Data Service (Note: this is the traditional way)
Create an Entity Framework (E)F Data Model of our database
Publish that model with WCF Data Services
Add Security to the OData feed
(This is where it is better than a direct connection to the SQL Server)
My co-worker (correctly) pointed out that all our clients will be coupled to the database now. (If a table or column is refactored then the clients will have to change too)
EF offers a bit of flexibility on how your data is presented and could be used to hide some minor database changes that don't affect the client apps. But I have found it to be quite limited. (See this post for an example) I have found that the POCO templates (while nice for allowing separation of the model and the entities) also does not offer very much flexibility.
So, the question: What do I tell my co-worker? How do I setup my WCF Data Services so they are using business oriented contracts (like they would be if every read operation used a standard WCF Soap based service)?
Just to be clear, let me ask this a different way. How can I decouple EF from WCF Data Services. I am fine to make up my own contracts and use AutoMapper to convert between them. But I would like to not go directly from EF to OData.
NOTE: I still want to use EF as my ORM. Rolling my own ORM is not really a solution...
If you use your custom classes instead of using classes generated directly by EF you will also change a provide for WCF Data Services. It means you will no more pass EF context as generic parameter to DataService base class. This will be OK if you have read only services but once you expect any data modifications from clients you will have a lot of work to do.
Data services based on EF context supports data modifications. All other data services use reflection provider which is read only by default until you implement IUpdatable on your custom "service context class".
Data services are technology for creating quickly services exposing your data. They are coupled with their context and it is responsibility of the context to provide abstraction. If you want to make quick and easy services you are dependent on features supported by EF mapping. You can make some abstractions in EDMX, you can make projections (DefiningQuery, QueryView) etc. but all these features have some limitations (for example projections are readonly unless you use stored procedures for modifications).
Data services are not the same as providing connection to database. There is one very big difference - connection to database will ensure only access and execution permissions but it will not ensure data security. WCF Data Services offer data security because you can create interceptors which will add filters to queries to retrieve only data the user is allowed to see or check if he is allowed to modify the data. That is the difference you can tell your colleague.
In case of abstraction - do you want a quick easy solution or not? You can inject abstraction layer between service and ORM but you need to implement mentioned method and you have to test it.
Most simple approach:
DO NOT PUBLISH YOUR TABLES ;)
Make a separate schema
Add views to this
Put those views to EF and publish them.
The views are decoupled from the tables and thus can be simplified and refactored separately.
Standard approach, also for reporting.
Apart from achieving more granular data authorisation (based of certain field values etc) OData also allows your data to be accessible via open standards like JSON/Xml over Http using OAuth. This is very useful for the web/mobile applications. Now you could create a web service to expose your data but that will warrant a change every time your client needs change in the data requirements (e.g. extra fields needed) whereas OData allows this via OData queries. In a big enterprise this is also useful for designing security at infrastructure level as it will only allow the text based (http) calls which can be inspected/verified for security threats via network firewalls'.
You have some other options for your OData client. Have a look at Simple.OData.Client, described in this article: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/686240/reasons-to-consume-OData-feeds-using-Simple-ODa
And in case you are familiar with Simple.Data microORM, there is an OData adapter for it:
https://github.com/simplefx/Simple.OData/wiki
UPDATE. My recommendations go for client choice while your question is about setting up your server side. Then of course they are not what you are asking. I will leave however my answer so you aware of client alternatives.
I have a ASP.Net MVC 3 photo gallery, which is designed in this way:
Data Repositories(IImageRepoSitory, ITagRepository etc)
|
Services (IGalleryService, IWebService etc)
|
Web Application
Which I use Ninject to inject the required Services and repositories into the web application.
Before I use actual database, I used a simple ArrayList (and JSON serialization) as my presistent logic (That will be JsonImageRepository/JSonTagRepository) which works perfectly fine. But later on, I moved to EF4 CTP5 (Code First), and many problems appeared. Basically, I injected those repositories and services as Singleton (which declared in Global.asax.cs), but when I have several threads that access the repositories, it saids:
Data Connection is closed.
I changed to something like Thread Mode or Request Mode in Ninject but various exception raised (regarding to multiple instances of context, so I think Singleton should be the only option).
Is there anything wrong with the design? or how should I configure those components?
Normally, repository access should be in request scope (at least the ones that change data). I recommend looking at bob's blog posts about a repository pattern implementation using Ninject and NHibernate. It should be pretty much the same for EF4:
http://blog.bobcravens.com/2010/06/the-repository-pattern-with-linq-to-fluent-nhibernate-and-mysql/
http://blog.bobcravens.com/2010/07/using-nhibernate-in-asp-net-mvc/
http://blog.bobcravens.com/2010/09/the-repository-pattern-part-2/
I planned adding this to the sample application in near future.
I’m just working on this interesting thing with ADO.net entities and need your opinion. Often a solution would be created to provide a service (WCF or web service) to allow access to the DB via the entity framework, but I working on an application that runs internally and has domain access pretty much all the time. The question is if it’s good practice to create a data service for the application to interface from or could I go from the WPF application directly to the entity framework. What’s the best practice in this case and what are some of the pros’ and cons’ to the two different approach.
By using entity framework directly, do you mean that the WPF application would connect to the database, or that it would still use services but re-use the entities?
If it's the first approach, I tend to be against this because it means multiple clients connecting to the database, which a) is an additional security concern, b) could make it more expensive from a licensing perspective, and c) means you don't get the benefits of connection pooling. Databases are the most expensive things to scale so I'd try to design the solution to use services and reduce the pressure on the database. But there are times when it's appropriate. One thing I've noticed is that applications which do start out connecting directly tend to get refactored to go via a service later; it seldom happens the other way around. But it might also be a case of YAGNI.
If it's the second approach, I think that's fine. It's common for people looking at WCF to think "service oriented" - that is, there should be a strict contract between services and things shouldn't be shared. But a "multi-tier" application, which is only designed to have one client, is also a perfectly valid architecture and doesn't need to be so decoupled. In that case, reusing the entities on both sides of the service boundary should be fine. However, I'm not sure how easy this is to do with EF specifically, since I haven't used it except in experiments.
It really depends on the level of complexity and the required level of coupling/modularity. I think a good compromise would be to create a EF model in it's own library or the like with a simple level of abstraction. In that scenario if you chose to change the model to use an exposed service instead of direct access it shouldn't be a big deal to refactor existing code and the new service could utilize the existing library.