Search Results

Search found 3630 results on 146 pages for 'wcf interoperability'.

Page 1/146 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • European e-government Action Plan all about interoperability

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    Yesterday, the European Commission released its European eGovernment Action Plan for 2011-2015. The plan includes measures on providing deeper user empowerment, enhancing the Internal Market, more efficiency and effectiveness of public administrations, and putting in place pre-conditions for developing e-government. The Good - Defines interoperability very clearly. Calls interoperability "a pre-condition for cross-border eGovernment services" (a very strong formulation) and says interoperability "is supported by open specifications". - Uses the terminology "open specifications" which, let's face it, is pretty close to "open standards" which is the term the rest of the world would use. - Confirms that Member States are fully committed to the political priorities of the Malmö Declaration (which was all about open standards) including the very strong action: by 2013: All Member States will have incorporated the political priorities of the Malmö Declaration in their national strategies. Such tight Action Plan integration between Commission and Member State priorities has seldom been attempted before, particularly not in a field where European legal competence is virtually non-existent. What we see now, is the subtle force of soft power rather than the rough force of regulation. In this case, it is the Member States who want Europe to take the lead. Very refreshing! Some quotes that show the commitment to interoperability and open specifications: "The emergence of innovative technologies such as "service-oriented architectures" (SOA), or "clouds" of services,  together with more open specifications which allow for greater sharing, re-use and interoperability reinforce the ability of ICT to play a key role in this quest for effficiency in the public sector." (p.4) "Interoperability is supported through open specifications" (p.13) 2.4.1. Open Specifications and Interoperability (p.13 has a whole section dedicated to this important topic. Open specifications and interoperability are nearly 100% interrelated): "Interoperability is the ability of systems and machines to exchange, process and correctly interpret information. It is more than just a technical challenge, as it also involves legal, organisational and semantic aspects of handling  data" (p.13) "standards and  open platforms offer opportunities for more cost-effective use of resources and delivery of services" (p.13). The Bad Shies away from defining open standards, or even open specifications, the EU's preferred term for the key enabler of interoperability. Verdict 90/100, a very respectable score.

    Read the article

  • European Interoperability Framework - a new beginning?

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    The most controversial document in the history of the European Commission's IT policy is out. EIF is here, wrapped in the Communication "Towards interoperability for European public services", and including the new feature European Interoperability Strategy (EIS), arguably a higher strategic take on the same topic. Leaving EIS aside for a moment, the EIF controversy has been around IPR, defining open standards and about the proper terminology around standardization deliverables. Today, as the document finally emerges, what is the verdict? First of all, to be fair to those among you who do not spend your lives in the intricate labyrinths of Commission IT policy documents on interoperability, let's define what we are talking about. According to the Communication: "An interoperability framework is an agreed approach to interoperability for organisations that want to collaborate to provide joint delivery of public services. Within its scope of applicability, it specifies common elements such as vocabulary, concepts, principles, policies, guidelines, recommendations, standards, specifications and practices." The Good - EIF reconfirms that "The Digital Agenda can only take off if interoperability based on standards and open platforms is ensured" and also confirms that "The positive effect of open specifications is also demonstrated by the Internet ecosystem." - EIF takes a productive and pragmatic stance on openness: "In the context of the EIF, openness is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and stimulate debate within that community, the ultimate goal being to advance knowledge and the use of this knowledge to solve problems" (p.11). "If the openness principle is applied in full: - All stakeholders have the same possibility of contributing to the development of the specification and public review is part of the decision-making process; - The specification is available for everybody to study; - Intellectual property rights related to the specification are licensed on FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software" (p. 26). - EIF is a formal Commission document. The former EIF 1.0 was a semi-formal deliverable from the PEGSCO, a working group of Member State representatives. - EIF tackles interoperability head-on and takes a clear stance: "Recommendation 22. When establishing European public services, public administrations should prefer open specifications, taking due account of the coverage of functional needs, maturity and market support." - The Commission will continue to support the National Interoperability Framework Observatory (NIFO), reconfirming the importance of coordinating such approaches across borders. - The Commission will align its internal interoperability strategy with the EIS through the eCommission initiative. - One cannot stress the importance of using open standards enough, whether in the context of open source or non-open source software. The EIF seems to have picked up on this fact: What does the EIF says about the relation between open specifications and open source software? The EIF introduces, as one of the characteristics of an open specification, the requirement that IPRs related to the specification have to be licensed on FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software. In this way, companies working under various business models can compete on an equal footing when providing solutions to public administrations while administrations that implement the standard in their own software (software that they own) can share such software with others under an open source licence if they so decide. - EIF is now among the center pieces of the Digital Agenda (even though this demands extensive inter-agency coordination in the Commission): "The EIS and the EIF will be maintained under the ISA Programme and kept in line with the results of other relevant Digital Agenda actions on interoperability and standards such as the ones on the reform of rules on implementation of ICT standards in Europe to allow use of certain ICT fora and consortia standards, on issuing guidelines on essential intellectual property rights and licensing conditions in standard-setting, including for ex-ante disclosure, and on providing guidance on the link between ICT standardisation and public procurement to help public authorities to use standards to promote efficiency and reduce lock-in.(Communication, p.7)" All in all, quite a few good things have happened to the document in the two years it has been on the shelf or was being re-written, depending on your perspective, in any case, awaiting the storms to calm. The Bad - While a certain pragmatism is required, and governments cannot migrate to full openness overnight, EIF gives a bit too much room for governments not to apply the openness principle in full. Plenty of reasons are given, which should maybe have been put as challenges to be overcome: "However, public administrations may decide to use less open specifications, if open specifications do not exist or do not meet functional interoperability needs. In all cases, specifications should be mature and sufficiently supported by the market, except if used in the context of creating innovative solutions". - EIF does not use the internationally established terminology: open standards. Rather, the EIF introduces the notion of "formalised specification". How do "formalised specifications" relate to "standards"? According to the FAQ provided: The word "standard" has a specific meaning in Europe as defined by Directive 98/34/EC. Only technical specifications approved by a recognised standardisation body can be called a standard. Many ICT systems rely on the use of specifications developed by other organisations such as a forum or consortium. The EIF introduces the notion of "formalised specification", which is either a standard pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC or a specification established by ICT fora and consortia. The term "open specification" used in the EIF, on the one hand, avoids terminological confusion with the Directive and, on the other, states the main features that comply with the basic principle of openness laid down in the EIF for European Public Services. Well, this may be somewhat true, but in reality, Europe is 30 year behind in terminology. Unless the European Standardization Reform gets completed in the next few months, most Member States will likely conclude that they will go on referencing and using standards beyond those created by the three European endorsed monopolists of standardization, CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. Who can afford to begin following the strict Brussels rules for what they can call open standards when, in reality, standards stemming from global standardization organizations, so-called fora/consortia, dominate in the IT industry. What exactly is EIF saying? Does it encourage Member States to go on using non-ESO standards as long as they call it something else? I guess I am all for it, although it is a bit cumbersome, no? Why was there so much interest around the EIF? The FAQ attempts to explain: Some Member States have begun to adopt policies to achieve interoperability for their public services. These actions have had a significant impact on the ecosystem built around the provision of such services, e.g. providers of ICT goods and services, standardisation bodies, industry fora and consortia, etc... The Commission identified a clear need for action at European level to ensure that actions by individual Member States would not create new electronic barriers that would hinder the development of interoperable European public services. As a result, all stakeholders involved in the delivery of electronic public services in Europe have expressed their opinions on how to increase interoperability for public services provided by the different public administrations in Europe. Well, it does not take two years to read 50 consultation documents, and the EU Standardization Reform is not yet completed, so, more pragmatically, you finally had to release the document. Ok, let's leave some of that aside because the document is out and some people are happy (and others definitely not). The Verdict Considering the controversy, the delays, the lobbying, and the interests at stake both in the EU, in Member States and among vendors large and small, this document is pretty impressive. As with a good wine that has not yet come to full maturity, let's say that it seems to be coming in in the 85-88/100 range, but only a more fine-grained analysis, enjoyment in good company, and ultimately, implementation, will tell. The European Commission has today adopted a significant interoperability initiative to encourage public administrations across the EU to maximise the social and economic potential of information and communication technologies. Today, we should rally around this achievement. Tomorrow, let's sit down and figure out what it means for the future.

    Read the article

  • Consume WCF Service InProcess using Agatha and WCF

    - by REA_ANDREW
    I have been looking into this lately for a specific reason.  Some integration tests I want to write I want to control the types of instances which are used inside the service layer but I want that control from the test class instance.  One of the problems with just referencing the service is that a lot of the time this will by default be done inside a different process.  I am using StructureMap as my DI of choice and one of the tools which I am using inline with RhinoMocks is StructureMap.AutoMocking.  With StructureMap the main entry point is the ObjectFactory.  This will be process specific so if I decide that the I want a certain instance of a type to be used inside the ServiceLayer I cannot configure the ObjectFactory from my test class as that will only apply to the process which it belongs to. This is were I started thinking about two things: Running a WCF in process Being able to share mocked instances across processes A colleague in work pointed me to a project which is for the latter but I thought that it would be a better solution if I could run the WCF Service in process.  One of the projects which I use when I think about WCF Services is AGATHA, and the one which I have to used to try and get my head around doing this. Another asset I have is a book called Programming WCF Services by Juval Lowy and if you have not heard of it or read it I would definately recommend it.  One of the many topics that is inside this book is the type of configuration you need to communicate with a service in the same process, and it turns out to be quite simple from a config point of view. <system.serviceModel> <services> <service name="Agatha.ServiceLayer.WCF.WcfRequestProcessor"> <endpoint address ="net.pipe://localhost/MyPipe" binding="netNamedPipeBinding" contract="Agatha.Common.WCF.IWcfRequestProcessor"/> </service> </services> <client> <endpoint name="MyEndpoint" address="net.pipe://localhost/MyPipe" binding="netNamedPipeBinding" contract="Agatha.Common.WCF.IWcfRequestProcessor"/> </client> </system.serviceModel>   You can see here that I am referencing the Agatha object and contract here, but also that my binding and the address is something called Named Pipes.  THis is sort of the “Magic” which makes it happen in the same process. Next I need to open the service prior to calling the methods on a proxy which I also need.  My initial attempt at the proxy did not use any Agatha specific coding and one of the pains I found was that you obviously need to give your proxy the known types which the serializer can be aware of.  So we need to add to the known types of the proxy programmatically.  I came across the following blog post which showed me how easy it was http://bloggingabout.net/blogs/vagif/archive/2009/05/18/how-to-programmatically-define-known-types-in-wcf.aspx. First Pass So with this in mind, and inside a console app this was my first pass at consuming a service in process.  First here is the proxy which I made making use of the Agatha IWcfRequestProcessor contract. public class InProcProxy : ClientBase<Agatha.Common.WCF.IWcfRequestProcessor>, Agatha.Common.WCF.IWcfRequestProcessor { public InProcProxy() { } public InProcProxy(string configurationName) : base(configurationName) { } public Agatha.Common.Response[] Process(params Agatha.Common.Request[] requests) { return Channel.Process(requests); } public void ProcessOneWayRequests(params Agatha.Common.OneWayRequest[] requests) { Channel.ProcessOneWayRequests(requests); } } So with the proxy in place I could then use this after opening the service so here is the code which I use inside the console app make the request. static void Main(string[] args) { ComponentRegistration.Register(); ServiceHost serviceHost = new ServiceHost(typeof(Agatha.ServiceLayer.WCF.WcfRequestProcessor)); serviceHost.Open(); Console.WriteLine("Service is running...."); using (var proxy = new InProcProxy()) { foreach (var operation in proxy.Endpoint.Contract.Operations) { foreach (var t in KnownTypeProvider.GetKnownTypes(null)) { operation.KnownTypes.Add(t); } } var request = new GetProductsRequest(); var responses = proxy.Process(new[] { request }); var response = (GetProductsResponse)responses[0]; Console.WriteLine("{0} Products have been retrieved", response.Products.Count); } serviceHost.Close(); Console.WriteLine("Finished"); Console.ReadLine(); } So what I used here is the KnownTypeProvider of Agatha to easily get all the types I need for the service/proxy and add them to the proxy.  My Request handler for this was just a test one which always returned 2 products. public class GetProductsHandler : RequestHandler<GetProductsRequest,GetProductsResponse> { public override Agatha.Common.Response Handle(GetProductsRequest request) { return new GetProductsResponse { Products = new List<ProductDto> { new ProductDto{}, new ProductDto{} } }; } } Second Pass Now after I did this I started reading up some more on some resources including more by Davy Brion and others on Agatha.  Now it turns out that the work I did above to create a derived class of the ClientBase implementing Agatha.Common.WCF.IWcfRequestProcessor was not necessary due to a nice class which is present inside the Agatha code base, RequestProcessorProxy which takes care of this for you! :-) So disregarding that class I made for the proxy and changing my code to use it I am now left with the following: static void Main(string[] args) { ComponentRegistration.Register(); ServiceHost serviceHost = new ServiceHost(typeof(Agatha.ServiceLayer.WCF.WcfRequestProcessor)); serviceHost.Open(); Console.WriteLine("Service is running...."); using (var proxy = new RequestProcessorProxy()) { var request = new GetProductsRequest(); var responses = proxy.Process(new[] { request }); var response = (GetProductsResponse)responses[0]; Console.WriteLine("{0} Products have been retrieved", response.Products.Count); } serviceHost.Close(); Console.WriteLine("Finished"); Console.ReadLine(); }   Cheers for now, Andy References Agatha WCF InProcess Without WCF StructureMap.AutoMocking Cross Process Mocking Agatha Programming WCF Services by Juval Lowy

    Read the article

  • How fast are my services? Comparing basicHttpBinding and ws2007HttpBinding using the SO-Aware Test Workbench

    - by gsusx
    When working on real world WCF solutions, we become pretty aware of the performance implications of the binding and behavior configuration of WCF services. However, whether it’s a known fact the different binding and behavior configurations have direct reflections on the performance of WCF services, developers often struggle to figure out the real performance behavior of the services. We can attribute this to the lack of tools for correctly testing the performance characteristics of WCF services...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Using multiple distinct TCP security binding configurations in a single WCF IIS-hosted WCF service a

    - by Sandor Drieënhuizen
    I have a set of IIS7-hosted net.tcp WCF services that serve my ASP.NET MVC web application. The web application is accessed over the internet. WCF Services (IIS7) <--> ASP.NET MVC Application <--> Client Browser The services are username authenticated, the account that a client (of my web application) uses to logon ends up as the current principal on the host. I want one of the services to be authenticated differently, because it serves the view model for my logon view. When it's called, the client is obviously not logged on yet. I figure Windows authentication serves best or perhaps just certificate based security (which in fact I should use for the authenticated services as well) if the services are hosted on a machine that is not in the same domain as the web application. That's not the point here though. Using multiple TCP bindings is what's giving me trouble. I tried setting it up like this: <bindings> <netTcpBinding> <binding> <security mode="TransportWithMessageCredential"> <message clientCredentialType="UserName"/> </security> </binding> <binding name="public"> <security mode="Transport"> <message clientCredentialType="Windows"/> </security> </binding> </netTcpBinding> </bindings> The thing is that both bindings don't seem to want live together in my host. When I remove either of them, all's fine but together they produce the following exception on the client: The requested upgrade is not supported by 'net.tcp://localhost:8081/Service2.svc'. This could be due to mismatched bindings (for example security enabled on the client and not on the server). In the server trace log, I find the following exception: Protocol Type application/negotiate was sent to a service that does not support that type of upgrade. Am I looking into the right direction or is there a better way to solve this?

    Read the article

  • SO-Aware at the Atlanta Connected Systems User Group

    - by gsusx
    Today my colleague Don Demsak will be presenting a session about WCF management, testing and governance using SO-Aware and the SO-Aware Test Workbench at the Connected Systems User Group in Atlanta . Don is a very engaging speaker and has prepared some very cool demos based on lessons of real world WCF solutions. If you are in the ATL area and interested in WCF, AppFabric, BizTalk you should definitely swing by Don’s session . Don’t forget to heckle him a bit (you can blame it for it ;) )...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Create a WCF REST Client Proxy Programatically (in C#)

    - by Tawani
    I am trying to create a REST Client proxy programatically in C# using the code below but I keep getting a CommunicationException error. Am I missing something? public static class WebProxyFactory { public static T Create<T>(string url) where T : class { ServicePointManager.Expect100Continue = false; WebHttpBinding binding = new WebHttpBinding(); binding.MaxReceivedMessageSize = 1000000; WebChannelFactory<T> factory = new WebChannelFactory<T>(binding, new Uri(url)); T proxy = factory.CreateChannel(); return proxy; } public static T Create<T>(string url, string userName, string password) where T : class { ServicePointManager.Expect100Continue = false; WebHttpBinding binding = new WebHttpBinding(); binding.Security.Mode = WebHttpSecurityMode.TransportCredentialOnly; binding.Security.Transport.ClientCredentialType = HttpClientCredentialType.Basic; binding.UseDefaultWebProxy = false; binding.MaxReceivedMessageSize = 1000000; WebChannelFactory<T> factory = new WebChannelFactory<T>(binding, new Uri(url)); ClientCredentials credentials = factory.Credentials; credentials.UserName.UserName = userName; credentials.UserName.Password = password; T proxy = factory.CreateChannel(); return proxy; } } So that I can use it as follows: IMyRestService proxy = WebProxyFactory.Create<IMyRestService>(url, usr, pwd); var result = proxy.GetSomthing(); // Fails right here

    Read the article

  • New Interoperability Solutions for SQL Server 2012

    - by The Official Microsoft IIS Site
    I am excited to share some great news about how we are opening up the SQL Server data platform even further with expanded interoperability support through new tools that allow customers to modernize their infrastructure while maximizing existing investments and extending virtually any data anywhere. The SQL Server team today introduced several tools that enable interoperability with SQL Server 2012. These tools help developers to build secure, highly available and high performance applications for...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Using WCF DLL with VB6 ?

    - by Steven2ic
    I have a VB6 application that needs to communicate with a VS2008 VB.NET WCF server. I have built a VB.NET WCF DLL to be used on the client side, and it --almost-- works with the VB6 application. When I try to run the VB6 app in debug mode, I get "Could not find endpoint element with name 'NetTCPBinding_IComPortManager' and contract 'IComPortManager' in the ServiceModel client configuration section." Using a dummy VB.Net client app, with the same WCF DLL works fine. I presume that the VB6 app/WCF DLL is not finding app.config. Where should app.config be ? Is there a way to tell WCF where to find app.config ?

    Read the article

  • WCF Binding Created In Code

    - by Daniel
    Hello I've a must to create wcf service with parameter. I'm following this http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/wcf/thread/8f18aed8-8e34-48ea-b8be-6c29ac3b4f41 First this is that I don't know how can I set this custom behavior "MyServiceBehavior" in my Web.config in ASP.NET MVC app that will host it. As far as I know behaviors must be declared in section in wcf.config. How can I add reference there to my behavior class from service assembly? An second thing is that I the following example the create local host, but how I can add headers used in constructor when I use service reference and it will already create instance of web service, right? Regards, Daniel Skowronski

    Read the article

  • Using a service registry that doesn’t suck Part III: Service testing is part of SOA governance

    - by gsusx
    This is the third post of this series intended to highlight some of the principles of modern SOA governance solution. You can read the first two parts here: Using a service registry that doesn’t suck part I: UDDI is dead Using a service registry that doesn’t suck part II: Dear registry, do you have to be a message broker? This time I’ve decided to focus on what of the aspects that drives me ABSOLUTELY INSANE about traditional SOA Governance solutions: service testing or I should I say the lack of...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Using a service registry that doesn’t suck part II: Dear registry, do you have to be a message broker?

    - by gsusx
    Continuing our series of posts about service registry patterns that suck, we decided to address one of the most common techniques that Service Oriented (SOA) governance tools use to enforce policies. Scenario Service registries and repositories serve typically as a mechanism for storing service policies that model behaviors such as security, trust, reliable messaging, SLAs, etc. This makes perfect sense given that SOA governance registries were conceived as a mechanism to store and manage the policies...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Agile SOA Governance: SO-Aware and Visual Studio Integration

    - by gsusx
    One of the major limitations of traditional SOA governance platforms is the lack of integration as part of the development process. Tools like HP-Systinet or SOA Software are designed to operate by models on which the architects dictate the governance procedures and policies and the rest of the team members follow along. Consequently, those procedures are frequently rejected by developers and testers given that they can’t incorporate it as part of their daily activities. Having SOA governance products...(read more)

    Read the article

  • We are hiring (take a minute to read this, is not another BS talk ;) )

    - by gsusx
    I really wanted to wait until our new website was out to blog about this but I hope you can put up with the ugly website for a few more days J. Tellago keeps growing and, after a quick break at the beginning of the year, we are back in hiring mode J. We are currently expanding our teams in the United States and Argentina and have various positions open in the following categories. .NET developers: If you are an exceptional .NET programmer with a passion for creating great software solutions working...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Tellago & Tellago Studios at Microsoft TechReady

    - by gsusx
    This week Microsoft is hosting the first edition of their annual TechReady conference. Even though TechReady is an internal conference, Microsoft invited us to present a not one but two sessions about some our recent work. We are particularly proud of the fact that one of those sessions is about our SO-Aware service registry. We see this as a recognition to the growing popularity of SO-Aware as the best Agile SOA governance solution in the Microsoft platform. Well, on Tuesday I had the opportunity...(read more)

    Read the article

  • WCF: Manually configuring Binding and Endpoint causes SerciveChannel Faulted State

    - by Matthias
    Hi there, I've created a ComVisible assembly to be used in a classic-asp application. The assembly should act as a wcf client and connect to a wcf service host (inside a windows service) on the same machine using named pipes. The wcf service host works fine with other clients, so the problem must be within this assembly. In order to get things work I added a service reference to the ComVisible assembly and proxy classes and the corresponding app.config settings were generated for me. Everything fine so far except that the app config would not be recognized when doing an CreateObject with my assembly in the asp code. I went and tried to hardcode (just for testing) the Binding and Endpoint and pass those two to the constructor of my ClientBase derived proxy using this code: private NetNamedPipeBinding clientBinding = null; private EndpointAddress clientAddress = null; clientBinding = new NetNamedPipeBinding(); clientBinding.OpenTimeout = new TimeSpan(0, 1, 0); clientBinding.CloseTimeout = new TimeSpan(0, 0, 10); clientBinding.ReceiveTimeout = new TimeSpan(0, 2, 0); clientBinding.SendTimeout = new TimeSpan(0, 1, 0); clientBinding.TransactionFlow = false; clientBinding.TransferMode = TransferMode.Buffered; clientBinding.TransactionProtocol = TransactionProtocol.OleTransactions; clientBinding.HostNameComparisonMode = HostNameComparisonMode.StrongWildcard; clientBinding.MaxBufferPoolSize = 524288; clientBinding.MaxBufferSize = 65536; clientBinding.MaxConnections = 10; clientBinding.MaxReceivedMessageSize = 65536; clientAddress = new EndpointAddress("net.pipe://MyService/"); MyServiceClient client = new MyServiceClient(clientBinding, clientAddress); client.Open(); // do something with the client client.Close(); But this causes the following error: The communication object, System.ServiceModel.Channels.ServiceChannel, cannot be used for communication because it is in the faulted state. The environment is .Net Framework 3.5 / C#. What am I missing here?

    Read the article

  • WCF Double Hop questions about Security and Binding.

    - by Ken Maglio
    Background information: .Net Website which calls a service (aka external service) facade on an app server in the DMZ. This external service then calls the internal service which is on our internal app server. From there that internal service calls a stored procedure (Linq to SQL Classes), and passes the serialized data back though to the external service, and from there back to the website. We've done this so any communication goes through an external layer (our external app server) and allows interoperability; we access our data just like our clients consuming our services. We've gotten to the point in our development where we have completed the system and it all works, the double hop acts as it should. However now we are working on securing the entire process. We are looking at using TransportWithMessageCredentials. We want to have WS2007HttpBinding for the external for interoperability, but then netTCPBinding for the bridge through the firewall for security and speed. Questions: If we choose WS2007HttpBinding as the external services binding, and netTCPBinding for the internal service is this possible? I know WS-* supports this as does netTCP, however do they play nice when passing credential information like user/pass? If we go to Kerberos, will this impact anything? We may want to do impersonation in the future. If you can when you answer post any reference links about why you're answering the way you are, that would be very helpful to us. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • how to enable WCF Session with wsHttpBidning with Transport only Security

    - by Mubashar Ahmad
    Dear Devs I have a WCF Service currently deployed with basicHttpBindings and SSL enabled. But now i need to enable wcf sessions(not asp sessions) so i moved service to wsHttpBidnings but sessions are not enabled I have set [ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode = InstanceContextMode.PerSession)] But when i set SessionMode=SessionMode.Required on service contract it says Contract requires Session, but Binding 'WSHttpBinding' doesn't support it or isn't configured properly to support it. following is the definition of WSHttpBinding <wsHttpBinding> <binding name="wsHttpBinding"> <readerQuotas maxStringContentLength="10240" /> <reliableSession enabled="false" /> <security mode="Transport"> <transport clientCredentialType="None"> <extendedProtectionPolicy policyEnforcement="Never" /> </transport> </security> </binding> </wsHttpBinding> please help me with this

    Read the article

  • Interoperability when returning derived class by base class in WCF

    - by mt_serg
    I have some simple code: [DataContract] [KnownType(typeof(SpecialEvent))] public class Event { //data } [DataContract] public class SpecialEvent : Event { //data } [ServiceContract] public interface IService { [OperationContract] List<Event> GetEvents(); } [ServiceBehavior] public class Service : IService { public List<Event> GetEvents() { List<Event> events = new List<Event>(); events.Add(new Event()); events.Add(new SpecialEvent()); return events; } } I know that it works fine in case wcf to wcf. but what about interoperability? is it generate standart wsdl and any client can use the service or no?

    Read the article

  • Calling a WCF service from another WCF service

    - by ultraman69
    Hi ! I have a WCF service hosted on a windows service on my Server1. It also has IIS on this machine. I call the service from a web app and it works fine. But within this service, I have to call another WCF sevice (also hosted on a windows service) located on Server2. The security credentials are set to "Message" and "Username". I have an error like "SOAP protcol negociation failed". It's a problem with my server certificate public key that doesn't seem to be recognise. However, if I call the service on the Server2 from Server1 in a console app, it works fine. I followed this tutorial to set up my certificates : http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WCF/wcf_certificates.aspx Here's the config file from my service on Server1 that tries to call the second one : <endpoint address="" binding="wsHttpBinding" contract="Microsoft.ServiceModel.Samples.ITraitement" /> <endpoint address="mex" binding="mexHttpBinding" contract="IMetadataExchange" /> </service> </services> <client> <endpoint address="http://Server2:8000/servicemodelsamples/service" behaviorConfiguration="myClientBehavior" binding="wsHttpBinding" bindingConfiguration="MybindingCon" contract="Microsoft.ServiceModel.Samples.ICalculator" name=""> <identity> <dns value="ODWCertificatServeur" /> </identity> </endpoint> </client> <bindings> <wsHttpBinding> <binding name="MybindingCon"> <security mode="Message"> <message clientCredentialType="UserName" /> </security> </binding> </wsHttpBinding> </bindings> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="ServiceTraitementBehavior"> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="True"/> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="True" /> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> <endpointBehaviors> <behavior name="myClientBehavior"> <clientCredentials> <clientCertificate findValue="MachineServiceTraitement" x509FindType="FindBySubjectName" storeLocation="LocalMachine" storeName="My" /> <serviceCertificate> <authentication certificateValidationMode="ChainTrust" revocationMode="NoCheck"/> </serviceCertificate> </clientCredentials> </behavior> </endpointBehaviors> </behaviors> And here's the config file from the web app that calls the service on Server1 : <system.serviceModel> <bindings> <wsHttpBinding> <binding name="WSHttpBinding_ITraitement" closeTimeout="00:01:00" openTimeout="00:01:00" receiveTimeout="00:10:00" sendTimeout="00:01:00" bypassProxyOnLocal="false" transactionFlow="false" hostNameComparisonMode="StrongWildcard" maxBufferPoolSize="524288" maxReceivedMessageSize="65536" messageEncoding="Text" textEncoding="utf-8" useDefaultWebProxy="true" allowCookies="false"> <readerQuotas maxDepth="32" maxStringContentLength="8192" maxArrayLength="16384" maxBytesPerRead="4096" maxNameTableCharCount="16384" /> <reliableSession ordered="true" inactivityTimeout="00:10:00" enabled="false" /> <security mode="Message"> <transport clientCredentialType="Windows" proxyCredentialType="None" realm="" /> <message clientCredentialType="Windows" negotiateServiceCredential="true" algorithmSuite="Default" establishSecurityContext="true" /> </security> </binding> </wsHttpBinding> </bindings> <client> <endpoint address="http://localhost:8020/ServiceTraitementPC" binding="wsHttpBinding" bindingConfiguration="WSHttpBinding_ITraitement" contract="ITraitement" name="WSHttpBinding_ITraitement"> </endpoint> </client> Any idea why it works if if I call it in a console app and not from my service ? Maybe it has something to do with the certificateValidationMode="ChainTrust" ?

    Read the article

  • Configuring multiple distinct WCF binding configurations causes an exception to be thrown

    - by Sandor Drieënhuizen
    I have a set of IIS7-hosted net.tcp WCF services that serve my ASP.NET MVC web application. The web application is accessed over the internet. WCF Services (IIS7) <--> ASP.NET MVC Application <--> Client Browser The services are username authenticated, the account that a client (of my web application) uses to logon ends up as the current principal on the host. I want one of the services to be authenticated differently, because it serves the view model for my logon view. When it's called, the client is obviously not logged on yet. I figure Windows authentication serves best or perhaps just certificate based security (which in fact I should use for the authenticated services as well) if the services are hosted on a machine that is not in the same domain as the web application. That's not the point here though. Using multiple TCP bindings is what's giving me trouble. I tried setting it up like this: <bindings> <netTcpBinding> <binding> <security mode="TransportWithMessageCredential"> <message clientCredentialType="UserName"/> </security> </binding> <binding name="public"> <security mode="Transport"> <message clientCredentialType="Windows"/> </security> </binding> </netTcpBinding> </bindings> The thing is that both bindings don't seem to want live together in my host. When I remove either of them, all's fine but together they produce the following exception on the client: The requested upgrade is not supported by 'net.tcp://localhost:8081/Service2.svc'. This could be due to mismatched bindings (for example security enabled on the client and not on the server). In the server trace log, I find the following exception: Protocol Type application/negotiate was sent to a service that does not support that type of upgrade. Am I looking into the right direction or is there a better way to solve this?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >