blocks|key|1771146|text|MSDN？我通常对图书馆参考本身做得很好，我通常希望在那里找到有价值的文章。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1771147|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

MSDN? I usually do pretty well with the Library reference itself, and I usually expect to find valuable articles there.

blocks|key|1771213|text|就它提供的功能而言，我认为答案是兼容性。ASMX服务是相当微软的。这并不是说他们没有尝试与其他消费者兼容；但除了ASP.NET网页和其他一些自定义的微软消费者之外，该模型并不适合太多。然而，由于WCF的架构，除了通常的SOAP之外，它还允许您的服务具有非常开放的基于标准的端点，例如REST、JSON等。其他人可能会比你的ASMX服务更容易使用你的WCF服务。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1771214|(这基本上都是从MSDN的比较阅读中推断出来的，所以知道更多的人应该可以随时纠正我。)|1771215|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

In terms of what it offers, I think the answer is compatibility. The ASMX services were pretty Microsofty. Not to say that they didn't try to be compatible with other consumers; but the model wasn't made to fit much besides ASP.NET web pages and some other custom Microsoft consumers. Whereas WCF, because of its architecture, allows your service to have very open-standard--based endpoints, e.g. REST, JSON, etc. in addition to the usual SOAP. Other people will probably have a much easier time consuming your WCF service than your ASMX one.

(This is all basically inferred from comparative MSDN reading, so someone who knows more should feel free to correct me.)

blocks|key|1771297|text|等等……你有没有使用过.NET远程处理，因为那才是它真正要取代的东西。.NET远程处理本身就相当复杂。我发现WCF更容易，布局也更好。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1771298|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

Wait.... did you ever use .NET Remoting, cause thats the real thing its replacing. .NET Remoting is pretty complicated itself. I find WCF easier and better laid out.

blocks|key|1556230|text|WCF比ASMX强大得多，它在几个方面对其进行了扩展。ASMX仅限于HTTP，而WCF可以使用多种协议进行通信(诚然，HTTP仍然是大多数人使用它的方式，至少对于需要互操作的服务是这样的)。WCF也更容易扩展。至少，可以用ASMX无法扩展的方式来扩展它。“容易”可能是在夸大它。=)|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1556231|在我看来，WCF提供的附加功能远远超过了它所增加的复杂性。我也觉得编程模型更简单。例如，与使用带有公共属性的DataContracts序列化进行序列化相比，XML要好得多。它在本质上也更具声明性，这也很好。|1556232|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

WCF is much more powerful than ASMX and it extends it in several ways. ASMX is limited to only HTTP, whereas WCF can use several protocols for its communication (granted, HTTP is still the way most people will use it, at least for services that need to be interoperable). WCF is also easier to extend. At least, it is possible to extend it in ways that ASMX cannot be extended. "Easy" may be stretching it. =)

The added functionality offered by WCF far outweighs the complexity it adds, in my opinion. I also feel that the programming model is easier. DataContracts are much nicer than having to serialize using XML serialization with public properties for everything, for example. It's also much more declarative in nature, which is also nice.

blocks|key|1771376|text|如果您正在使用VS2008并创建一个WCF项目，那么当您点击run/debug时，您将自动获得一个测试工具，并且您可以添加一个引用，而不必使用svcutil。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1771377|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

If you're using VS2008 and create a WCF project then you automatically get a test harness when you hit run/debug and you can add a reference without having to use svcutil.

blocks|key|1771416|text|VS2008包括“添加服务引用”上下文菜单项，它将在幕后为您创建代理。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1771417|如前所述，WCF的目的不仅仅是取代ASMX+web服务类型，而是为所有可互操作的服务提供一致、安全和可扩展的方法，无论它是通过HTTP、tcp、命名管道还是MSMQ传输。|1771418|我要承认，我确实有其他关于WCF的问题(例如，在通过basicHTTP公开服务时重写方法签名-参见here，但总的来说，我认为这是一个明确的改进|offset|length|1771419|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5863/c-wcf-service-backward-compatibility-issue^0|0|0|1D|4|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|Q|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|R|8|@]|9|@$F|S|G|T|1|U]]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|-4|5|6|7|V|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|I|$J|$5|K|L|M|A|$N|O]]]]

VS2008 includes the "Add Service Reference" context menu item which will create the proxy for you behind the scenes.

As was mentioned previously, WCF is not intended solely as a replacement for the ASMX web service types, but to provide a consistent, secure and scalable methodology for all interoperable services, whether it is over HTTP, tcp, named pipes or MSMQ transports.

I will confess that I do have other issues with WCF (e.g. re-writing method signatures when exposing a service over basicHTTP - see <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5863/c-wcf-service-backward-compatibility-issue">here</a>, but overall I think it is a definite imrovement

blocks|key|1771453|text|我很难知道什么时候我应该或将使用WCF。为什么？因为我把效率和简单性放在了我的清单的首位。为什么ASMX模型如此成功，因为它工作得很好，而且运行速度很快。在VS2005和.NET+2.0中，wsdl.exe提供了非常好的和兼容的服务。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1771454|在现实生活中，您的体系结构中应该只有很少的通信协议。这使它变得简单和可维护。如果您需要访问遗留系统，可以为它们编写特定的适配器，这样它们就可以在漂亮、闪亮、美丽的SOA世界中发挥作用。|1771455|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

I'm having a hardtime to see when I should or would use WCF. Why? Because I put productivity and simplicity on top of my list. Why was the ASMX model so succesful, because it worked, and you get it to work fast. And with VS 2005 and .NET 2.0 wsdl.exe was spitting out pretty nice and compliant services.

In real life you should have very few communication protocols in your architecture. This keeps it simple an maintainable. If you need to acces to legacy systems, write specific adapters for them so they can play along in the nice shiny and beautiful SOA world.

blocks|key|1771492|text|WCF不应该被认为是ASMX的替代品。从它的定位和微软内部的使用情况来看，它确实是用于任何类型的跨境通信的基础架构部分。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1771493|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

WCF should not be thought of as a replacement for ASMX. Judging at how it is positioned and how it is being used internally by Microsoft, it is really a fundamental architecture piece that is used for any type of cross-boundary communication.

blocks|key|1771535|text|我相信WCF确实在很多方面推进了ASMX+web服务的实现。首先，它提供了一个非常好的分层对象模型，有助于隐藏分布式应用程序的内在复杂性。其次，您可以拥有更多的请求-重放消息传递模式，包括从服务器到客户端的异步通知(使用纯HTTP是不可能的)，第三，从XML消息传递中抽象出底层传输协议，从而优雅地支持HTTP、HTTPS、TCP和其他。向后兼容“第一代”web服务也是一个加号。WCF使用XML标准作为内部表示格式。这可以被看作是优点或缺点，特别是在像JSON这样的“XML的无脂替代品”日益流行的情况下。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1771536|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

I believe that WCF really advances ASMX web services implementation in many ways. First of all it provides a very nice layered object model that helps hide the intrinsic complexity of distributed applications. 
Secondly you can have more than request-replay messaging patterns, including asynchronous notifications from server to client (impossible with pure HTTP), and thirdly abstracting away the underlying transport protocol from XML messaging and thus elegantly supporting HTTP, HTTPS, TCP and other. Backward compatibility with "1-st generation" web services is also a plus.
WCF uses XML standard as the internal representation format. This could be perceived as advantage or disadvantage, especially with the growing popularity "fat-free alternatives to XML" like JSON.

blocks|key|1556431|text|我发现使用WCF的困难之处在于管理客户端和服务器的配置，以及排除不太好的故障状态异常。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1556432|如果有人对此有任何捷径或建议，那就太好了。|1556433|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

The difficult things I find with WCF is managing the configurations for clients and servers, and troubleshooting the not so nice faulted state exceptions. 

It would be great if anyone had any shortcuts or tips for those.

I understand the value of the three-part service/host/client model offered by WCF. But is it just me or does it seem like WCF took something pretty direct and straightforward (the ASMX model) and made a mess out of it? 

Is there an alternative to using SvcUtil's command line step back in time to generate the proxy? With ASMX services a test harness was automatically provided; is there a good alternative today with WCF? 

I appreciate that the WS* stuff is more tightly integrated with WCF and hope to find some payoff for WCF there, but geeze, otherwise I'm perplexed. 

Also, the state of books available for WCF is abysmal at best. Juval Lowy, a superb author, has written a good O'Reilly reference book "Programming WCF Services" but it doesn't do that much (for me anyway) for learning now to use WCF. That book's precursor (and a little better organized, but not much, as a tutorial) is Michele Leroux Bustamante's Learning WCF. It has good spots but is outdated in place and its corresponding Web site is gone. 

Do you have good WCF learning references besides just continuing to Google the bejebus out of things?

Does WCF raise the bar or just the complexity level?

我理解WCF提供的三部分服务/主机/客户端模型的价值。但是，是不是只有我，或者看起来WCF采取了一些非常直接和直接的东西( ASMX模型)，并把它搞得一团糟？有没有替代使用SvcUtil的命令行步骤来生成代理的方法？有了ASMX服务，就自动提供了测试工具；现在有没有一个好的WCF替代方案？我很欣赏WS* stuff与W...

问WCF是提高了标准，还是仅仅提高了复杂度？
EN

社区

活动

资源

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问WCF是提高了标准，还是仅仅提高了复杂度？EN

社区

活动

资源

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问WCF是提高了标准，还是仅仅提高了复杂度？
EN