We Keep Coding

WCF or Web API for windows form application [duplicate]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I've spent a few months trying to grasp the concepts behind WCF and recently I've developed my first WCF service application.
I've struggled quite a bit to understand all the settings in the config file.
I am not convinced about the environment but it seems that you can do amazing stuff with it.
The other day I've found out that Microsoft has come out with a new thing called ASP.NET Web API.
For what I can read it's a RESTful framework, very easy to use and implement.
Now, I am trying to figure out what are the main differences between the 2 frameworks and if I should try and convert my old WCF service application with the new API.
Could someone, please, help me to understand the differences and usage of each?

For us, WCF is used for SOAP and Web API for REST. I wish Web API supported SOAP too. We are not using advanced features of WCF. Here is comparison from MSDN:

The new ASP.NET Web API is a continuation of the previous WCF Web API project (although some of the concepts have changed).
WCF was originally created to enable SOAP-based services. For simpler RESTful or RPCish services (think clients like jQuery) ASP.NET Web API should be good choice.

ASP.net Web API is all about HTTP and REST based GET,POST,PUT,DELETE with well know ASP.net MVC style of programming and JSON returnable; web API is for all the light weight process and pure HTTP based components. For one to go ahead with WCF even for simple or simplest single web service it will bring all the extra baggage. For light weight simple service for ajax or dynamic calls always WebApi just solves the need. This neatly complements or helps in parallel to the ASP.net MVC.
Check out the podcast : Hanselminutes Podcast 264 - This is not your father's WCF - All about the WebAPI with Glenn Block by Scott Hanselman for more information.

In the scenarios listed below you should go for WCF:
If you need to send data on protocols like TCP, MSMQ or MIME
If the consuming client just knows how to consume SOAP messages
WEB API is a framework for developing RESTful/HTTP services.
There are so many clients that do not understand SOAP like Browsers, HTML5, in those cases WEB APIs are a good choice.
HTTP services header specifies how to secure service, how to cache the information, type of the message body and HTTP body can specify any type of content like HTML not just XML as SOAP services.

Since using both till now, I have found many differences between WCF and Web API. Both technology stacks are suited well to different scenarios, so it is not possible to say which is better, this depends on configuration and scenario.
Properties ASP.Net Web API WCF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End point (mainly) Http based SOAP based
Service Type Front End Back-end
Support caching, compression, versioning No
Framework ASP.net WCF
Orientation Resource Oriented Service Oriented
Transports http http, tcp, MSMQ, Named pipe
Message pattern Request reply request Reply, one way, duplex
Configuration overhead Less Much
Security lesser than WCF (web standard security) Very high (WS-I standard)
Hosting IIS IIS, Windows Service, Self hosting
Performance Fast A bit slower than Web API
In use from .NET 4.0 .NET 3.5
Note: The data is not only my view, it is also collected from other official websites.

WCF will give you so much of out the box, it's not even comparable to anything. Unless you want to do on your own implementation of (to name a few) authentication, authorization, encryption, queuing, throttling, reliable messaging, logging, sessions and so on. WCF is not [only] web services; WCF is a development platform for SOA.

Why I'm answering:
I took huge amount of time to understand the difference between these two technologies. I'll put all those points here that I think "If I had these points at the time when I was wondering around in search of this answer, then I have decided very earlier in selecting my required technology."
Source of Information:
Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2015 Unleashed
ISBN-13: 978-0-672-33736-9 ISBN-10: 0-672-33736-3
Why ASP.NET Web API and WCF:
Before comparing the technologies of ASP.NET Web API and WCF, it is important to understand there are actually two styles/standards for creating web services: REST (Representational State Transfer) and SOAP/WSDL. The SOAP/WSDL was the original standard on which web services were built. However, it was difficult to use and had bulky message formats (like XML) that degraded performance. REST-based services quickly became the alternative. They are easier to write because they leverage the basic constructs of HTTP (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) and typically use smaller message formats (like JSON). As a result, REST-based HTTP services are now the standard for writing services that strictly target the Web.
Let's define purpose of ASP.NET Web API
ASP.NET Web API is Microsoft’s technology for developing REST-based HTTP web services. (It long ago replaced Microsoft’s ASMX, which was based on SOAP/WSDL.) The Web API makes it easy to write robust services based on HTTP protocols that all browsers and native devices understand. This enables you to create services to support your application and call them from other web applications, tablets, mobile phones, PCs, and gaming consoles. The majority of applications written today to leverage the ever present Web connection use HTTP services in some way.
Let's now define purpose of WCF:
Communicating across the Internet is not always the most efficient means. For example, if both the client and the service exist on the same technology (or even the same machine), they can often negotiate a more efficient means to communicate (such as TCP/IP). Service developers found themselves making the same choices they were trying to avoid. They now would have to choose between creating efficient internal services and being able to have the broad access found over the Internet. And, if they had to support both, they might have to create multiple versions of their service or at least separate proxies for accessing their service. This is the problem Microsoft solved with WCF.
With WCF, you can create your service without concern for boundaries. You can then let WCF worry about running your service in the most efficient way, depending on the calling client. To manage this task, WCF uses the concept of endpoints. Your service might have multiple endpoints (configured at design time or after deployment). Each endpoint indicates how the service might support a calling client: over the Web, via remoting, through Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ), and more. WCF enables you to focus on creating your service functionality. It worries about how to most efficiently speak with calling clients. In this way, a single WCF service can efficiently support many different client types.
Example of WCF:
Consider the example:
The customer data is shared among the applications. Each application might be written on a different platform, and it might exist in a different location. You can extract the customer interface into a WCF service that provides common access to shared customer data. This centralizes the data, reduces duplication, eliminates synchronization, and simplifies management. In addition, by using WCF, you can configure the service endpoints to work in the way that makes sense to the calling client. Figure shows the example from before with centralized access of customer data in a WCF service.
Conclusion:
i) When to choose Web API:
There is no denying that REST-based HTTP services like those created using ASP.NET Web API have become the standard for building web services. These services offer an easy, straightforward approach for web developers building services. Web developers understand HTTP GET and POST and thus adapt well to these types of services. Therefore, if you are writing services strictly targeted to HTTP, ASP.NET Web API is the logical choice.
ii) When to choose WCF:
The WCF technology is useful when you need to support multiple service endpoints based on different protocols and message formats. Products like Microsoft BizTalk leverage WCF for creating robust services that can be used over the Web as well via different machine-to-machine configurations.If, however, you do need to write an application that communicates over TCP/IP when connected to the local network and works over HTTP when outside the network, WCF is your answer.
Be Warned:
Web developers often view WCF as more difficult and complex to develop against. Therefore, if you do not foresee the need for multiprotocol services, you would likely stick with ASP.NET Web API.

There is a comparison on MSDN about this
WCF and ASP.NET Web API
For me, the choice was about Who the clients are, and where are they located?
Within the company Network and .NET based clients : Use WCF with TCP binding (Fast communication than HTTP)
Outside the company Network, and use diverse technologies like PHP, Python etc: Use Web API with REST

Business speaking, WebApi lacks of a WSDL, so the developers should document all manually. And if, for example, the WebApi operation returns a list of objects then, the client should creates the objects manually, i.e. WebAPI is really prone to errors of definitions.
The pro of Webapi is its more lightweight than WCF.

Regarding the statement "WebApi lacks of WSDL" there are several ways to generate Rest client. One popular approach is Swagger UI / (Swashbukkle Nuget). This gives a rich interface to understand the REST end point's input and output schema and online tool to test the end points.
JSON LD (Json Linked Documents) is another emerging standard which will further improve the JSON based REST developer experience by exposing the JSON schema with better semantics.

With wcf we can configure and expose the same service support for multiple endpoints like tcp, http.if you want your service to be only http based then it will be better to go with web API. Web API has very less configuration when compared to wcf and is bit faster than wcf. Wcf also supports restful services. If you have limitation of .Net framework 3.5 then your option is wcf.

What is the best way to communicate between a WCF service and separate threads?

The wording of the question doesn't necessarily do the issue justice...
I've got a client UI sitting on a local box with and a background windows service to support it while it performs background functions.
The client UI is just the presentation layer and the windows service does all the hard hitting action... so there needs to be communication between the two of them. After spending a while on google and reading best practices, I decided to make the service layer using WCF and named pipes.
The client UI is the WCF client and the windows service acts as the WCF host (hosting locally only) to support the client.
So this works fine, as it should. The client UI can pass data to the WCF host. But my question is, how do I make that data useful? I've got a couple engines running on the windows service/WCF host but the WCF host is completely unaware of the existence of any background engines. I need the client's communications requests to be able to interact with those engines.
Does anybody have any idea of a good design pattern or methodology on how to approach facilitating communication between a WCF host and running threads?

I think that your best bet is to have some static properties or methods that can be used to interchange data between the service threads/processes and the WCF service.
Alternatively, the way that we approach this is through the use of a database where the client or wcf service queues up requests for the service to respond to and the service, when it is available, updates the database with the responses to those requests. The client then polls the database (through WCF) on a regular basis to retrieve the results of any outstanding requests.
For example, if the client needs a report generated, we fire off a request through WCF and WCF creates a report generation request in the database.
The service responsible for generating reports regularly polls this table and, when it finds a new entry, it spins off a new thread/process that generates the report.
When the report has completed (either successfully or in failure), the service updates the database table with the result.
Meanwhile, the client asks the WCF service on a regular basis if any of the submitted reports have completed yet. The WCF service in turn polls the table for any requests that have been completed, but not been delivered to the client yet, gathers the information from them, and returns them to the client.
This mechanism allows us to do a couple of things:
1) We can scale the number of services processing these requests across multiple physical/virtual machines as the workload increases.
2) A given service can support numerous clients.
3) Through the WCF interface, we can extend this support to any client platform that we choose to support (web, win, tablet, phone, etc).
Forgot to mention:
Just because we elect to use a database doesn't mean that you have to in order to implement this pattern. You can easily implement the same functionality by creating a static request collection that the WCF service and worker service access in much the same way that we use the database.
You will just need to be very careful about properly obtaining and releasing locks on the static properties to avoid cross-thread collisions or deadlocks.

Two way communicating server/client architecture?

I'm trying to figure out which client/server technology (i.e. which part of the .NET Framework) to use for our new application. We will be writing the app in C# using .NET 3.5 SP1.
It is going to consist of a central Service that will be running as a "server", and several client applications spread out on several machines. The client application is a trayapp application that is going to receive notifications from the server, and will also send some information back to the server. The communication will therefore be two-way, and it needs to be fast. The server will need to know which client to send the notifications to.
I've been thinking that I could use Sockets. I've also come across the TcpListener and TcpClient classes. Another alternative is to do something with WCF, but I'm not sure how to do fast two-way communication with it.

WCF with NetTcp binding.
You should write a duplex service.

Without knowing how much data you're planning to exchange, it's difficult to make a precise recommendation. I use both WCF and TCP sockets to exchange data between my UI and my Windows service. Here are the considerations I made.
I use WCF for what I refer to as aperiodic data exchange. For example, when an event occurs in my Windows service, I communicate the event to the UI using WCF. Specifically for this event-based mechanism, I would highly recommend Juval Lowy's Publish-Subscribe Framework, which is available for free here. I also use WCF to communicate configuration changes from the UI to the Windows service. WCF is a perfect solution for this kind of data exchange for me.
When the user tells my Windows service to perform some action, a lot of data is sent from the Windows service to the UI. For this, I use TCP sockets. I know WCF has a streaming capability, and I strongly considered using it. I just did not have time to get comfortable with it before I had to make a decision, so I went with what I knew.
While I wish I was using WCF across the board for symmetry, i.e., for aperiodic and streaming data, this hybrid approach has served me well.
Hope this helps.

I would avoid sockets if I were you since there is a lot to know about them. Just look at all socket questions here at SO. It can be a nightmare if you do not know how to use them properly.
WCF will take care of all lower levels for you.

Creating a stateful client-server architecture in WCF

I am currently in the planning stages for a fairly comprehensive rewrite of one of our core (commercial) software offerings, and I am looking for a bit of advice.
Our current software is a business management package written in Winforms (originally in .NET 2.0, but has transitioned into 4.0 so far) that communicates directly with a SQL Server backend. There is also a very simple ASP.NET Webforms website that provides some basic functionality for users on the road. Each of our customers has to expose this site (and a couple of existing ASMX web services) to the world in order to make use of it, and we're beginning to outgrow this setup.
As we rewrite this package, we have decided that it would be best if we made the package more accessible from the outside, as well as providing our customers with the option of allowing us to host their data (we haven't decided on a provider) rather than requiring them to host SQL Server, SQL Server Reporting Services, and IIS on the premises.
Right now, our plan is to rewrite the existing Winforms application using WPF, as well as provide a much richer client experience over the web. Going forward, however, our customers have expressed an interest in using tablets, so we're going to need to support iOS and Android native applications as clients, as well.
The combination of our desire to offer off-site hosting (without having to use a VPN architecture) and support clients on platforms that are outside of the .NET ecosystem has led us to the conclusion that all of our client-server communication should take place through our own service rather than using the SQL Server client (since we don't want to expose that to the world and SQL Server drivers do not exist, to my knowledge, for some of those platforms).
Right now, our options as I see them are:
Write a completely custom service that uses TCP sockets and write everything (authentication, session management, serialization, etc.) from scratch. This is what I know the most about, but my assumption is that there's something better.
Use a WCF service for transport, and either take care of authentication and/or session management myself, or use something like durable services for session management
My basic question is this:
What would be the most appropriate choice of overall architecture, as well as specific features like ASP.NET authentication or Durable Services, to provide a stateful, persistent service to WPF, ASP.NET, iOS, and Android clients?

(I am working on the assumption that by "stateful" you mean session-based).
I guess one big question is: Do you want to use SOAP in your messaging stack?
You may be loathe to, as often there is no out-of-box support for SOAP on mobile platforms (see: How to call a web service with Android). No doubt its similarly painful with iOS. Calling SOAP from a browser ("ASP.NET") can't be fun. I'm not even sure its possible!
Unfortunately if you aren't using SOAP, then that quickly rules out most of WCFs standard Bindings. Of the one that remains, "Web HTTP", sessions are not supported because obviously HTTP is a stateless protocol. You can actually add session support by hand using a solution based on Cookies.
You could use the TCP transport (it supports sessions), and build you own channel stack to support a non-SOAP encoding (for example protocol-buffers), but even then you need to be careful because the TCP transport places special 'framing' bytes in it, so that would make interop non-trivial.
What sort of state do you need to store in your sessions? Maybe there are alternative approaches?

1) consider stateful utility services using singletons, but keep the request/response pattern at the facade level stateless.
2) consider distributed caching, perhaps Windows Server AppFabric Cache.

Communication (interprocess) between applications

I'm about to write a "server" application that is responsible to talk with external hardware. The application shall handle requests from clients. The clients send a message to the server, and if the server is busy with doing stuff with the hardware the new messages shall be stored in a queue that will be processed later.
The client shall also be able to cancel a request (if it is in the server's queue.). When the server application is finished with the hardware it shall be able to send the result back to the client that requested the job.
The server and client applications may or may not be on the same PC. All development is done in .NET (C#) 2005.
What is the best way to solve this communication problem?
MSMQ? SOAP? WCF? Remoting? Other?

Assuming you can use .NET 3.0 or greater then you probably want to WCF as the communications channel - the interface is consistent but it will allow you to use an appropriate transport mechanism depending on where the client and server are in relation to each other - so you can choose to use SOAP or MSMQ or a binary format or others as appropriate (and can roll your own if needed). It also covers the need for two way communication.
Queuing the messages at the server should probably be regarded as a separate problem - especially given the need to remove queued messages.

If clients and server processes are on the same machine, I think named pipes will give you the fastest raw byte transfer rate.
If the processes are across different machines, you'd need to use sockets-based approach.
Remoting is reportedly very slow. Based on the target OSes that you're planning to deploy the solution on, you could have options like WCF et al. However, the overhead of these protocols is something you may want to look at while deciding.

Remoting
If all development is done in .NET 2005, Remoting is the best way to go.

MSMQ would make some sense, though there are then security and deployment considerations. You could look at a service bus (such s NServiceBus or MassTransit) and there's also SQL Server Service Broker that could help (and can also be used by a service bus as the transport).
WCF would be another thing to look at, however that's really the across-network transport, so you'd probably still want the WCF calls to put a message on the server queue.
I don't recommend remoting, because it's hard to maintain a separation of concerns, and before you know it you're developing a really chatty interface without realising it. Remote calls are expensive in relative terms, so you should be trying to keep the messages fairly coarse-grained. WCF would be my recommendation. Not least because you can set it up to use a HTTP transport and avoid a lot of deployment and security headache.

The .NET Framework provides several ways to communicate with objects in different application domains, each designed with a particular level of expertise and flexibility in mind. For example, the growth of the Internet has made XML Web services an attractive method of communication, because XML Web services are built on the common infrastructure of the HTTP protocol and SOAP formatting, which uses XML. These are public standards, and can be used immediately with current Web infrastructures without worrying about additional proxy or firewall issues.
Not all applications should be built using some form of XML Web service, however, if only because of the performance issues related to using SOAP serialization over an HTTP connection.
Choosing Communication Options in .NET helps you decide which form of interobject communication you want for your application.